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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 2, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 9-19 and 22-28. Claims 9-28 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “message adapter” that is configured to adapt a payment alert to a messaging protocol associated with the network, in claim 9.
The “message adapter” that is configured to adapt a payment alert to a messaging protocol associated with the network, in claim 16.
The “message adapter” that is configured to adapt a payment alert to a messaging protocol associated with the network, in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitations identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section, seen above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s).
With respect to the “message adapter”, applicant’s disclosure mentions adapter in the social network [0044-0045] and further describes a social network adapter engine [0064]. Applicant does not recite a message adapter and furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited with the adapter.
The structure corresponding to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations that are computer-implemented specialized functions must include a general purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithms that the computer uses to perform each claimed specialized function. It is further noted that the written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could devise an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. In view of the details provided above, Examiner contends that applicant’s disclosure does not provide a disclosure of corresponding structure in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how the inventor intended to program the disclosed computer to perform all of the claimed functions. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, claims 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitations identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section, seen above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s).
With respect to the “message adapter”, applicant’s disclosure mentions adapter in the social network [0044-0045] and further describes a social network adapter engine [0064]. Applicant does not recite a message adapter and furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited with the adapter.
Examiner notes that for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure includes both the computer and the algorithm that performs the recited functions. In this instance, and as explained above, the disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure (i.e. computer and algorithm), material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the various functions. Accordingly, claims 3-4 and 13-14 indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 16 recites, in part, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored
thereon machine-readable instructions to cause a machine to perform…” The claims further recites “accessing a message adapter configured to…”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed embodiment encompasses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions. Accordingly, actions performed by the “messages adapter” are outside of the scope of the claim and do not have patentable weight. For example, the step “transmitting, using the message adapter, the payment alert via the social network to at least one of the first user or the second user using the social messaging protocol, wherein the first user remains within the social network during the processing of the payment request.”. is outside of the scope of the claim and does not have patentable weight.
Similarly, claim 22 recites, in part “system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions form the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed embodiment encompasses a system, a non-transitory memory and one or more processors. Accordingly, actions performed by the “messages adapter” are outside of the scope of the claim and do not have patentable weight. For example, the step “transmitting, using the message adapter, the payment alert via the social network to at least one of the first user or the second user using the social messaging protocol, wherein the first user remains within the social network during the processing of the payment request.”. is outside of the scope of the claim and does not have patentable weight.
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 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a method/process (Claims 8-22) Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 9 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 9 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving a payment request for a payment between a first user and a second user via a network connecting a plurality of users using a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of users, wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second identifier of the second user;
determining an authorization token and a first payment provider identifier corresponding to the first identifier from a database associated with the network wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the network;
accessing the first profile based on the authorization token;
obtaining a second payment provider identifier associated with the second user based on the first profile and the second identifier;
processing the payment from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on the first payment provider identifier and the second payment provider identifier;
accessing a message adapter configured to adapt a payment alert to a messaging protocol associated with the network, wherein the message adapter comprises an application programming interface (API) adapter specific to the network;
generating the payment alert associated with the payment processed using a messaging format for the messaging protocol of the network;
transmitting, using the message adapter, the payment alert adapted for the network in a message to at least one of the first user or the second user using the messaging protocol, wherein the first user remains within the network during the processing of the payment.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of processing a payment based on authorization data and generating payment alerts. The claim achieves this by receiving the payment request determining and accessing authorization data, obtaining payment identifier, processing the payment and generating and transmitting payment alert.
This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., transferring funds and business relations).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 9 recite the additional element of a network, a database, an application program interface (API) and a message adapter. Independent claim 16 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium, a social network, an application program interface (API) and a message adapter. Independent claim 22 recite the additional element of a system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, a network, an application program interface (API) and a message adapter. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, a network, an application program interface (API) and a message adapter in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field.
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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, a network, an application program interface (API) and a message adapter), an electronic display, a user interface and electronic wallets) to implement the abstract idea 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 or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 9, 16 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 10-15, 17-21 and 23-28 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10, 17 and 23 further refine the abstract idea by describing the first and second profiles. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11, 18 and 24 further refine the abstract idea by accessing the message adapter and authenticating the authorization token. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12, 19 and 25 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that the permission granted by the first user further permits access to the second profile via the first profile or messaging data shared by the second user with the first user on the online platform. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 13, 20 and 26 further refine the abstract idea by detecting a selection of a contact list and presenting an identifier. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14, 21 and 27 further refine the abstract idea by describing the detecting step. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 15 and 28 further refine the abstract idea by describing the payment and indicating that the permission granted by the first user permits the payment processor to post information on the online platform on behalf of the first user, and wherein the payment alert is posted by the payment processor based on the permission describing the detecting step. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortina et al (US 2011/0137789 A1), in view of Bangah et al. (US 2012/0150734 A1), in view of Templeton (US 2007/0150414A1), in view of Huang et al (US 20100106782 A1)
Regarding claims 9 and 22: Kortina disclose:
Claim 9: A method, comprising:
Claim 22: A system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions form the non-transitory memory (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1) to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a payment request for a payment between by a first user to a second user via network connecting a plurality of users using a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of users, wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second identifier of the second user; (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1a; Fig. 1d; [0046-0050]; [0084] user A agrees to pay user B $5.00 for utilities within the trust based transaction system wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second identifier of the second user having a second profile (i.e., unique identifier of user A and unique identifier of user B; the trust based transaction system updates the user profile of each user in the user profile database 225).)
determining an authorization token and a firsts payment provider identifier corresponding to the first identifier from a database associated with the network, wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the network; (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1a; [0034]; [0040];[0090]; A and user B in common, where the same other user ( or users) have established financial trust links to both user A and user B; (5); The financial trust graph is a sum-total of data stored in the system database ( or databases) about individuals, their relationships to other entities, and their relationships to each other via trusted financial links), wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the online platform (i.e., user 1 creates 151a trusted financial link to user 2.).
accessing the first profile based on the authorization token; (See at least Kortina, [0057]; [0069]; one user, e.g., user A, trusts a specific other user, e.g., User B. Accordingly, user B will have the right to withdraw funds from user A, within the limits set by user A and/or the system user B (who has been trusted by user A) is asked if she would like to reciprocate that trust).)
generating the payment alert associated with the payment processed using the messaging format for the messaging protocol of the network; and (See at least Kortina, [0074] User B and user A are notified via various digital communication channels that the transaction has been canceled. In another embodiment, user A is notified via various mechanisms that user B has requested that funds be moved from user A to user Band funds are instantly moved from user A to user B.)
transmitting, the payment alert (See at least Kortina, [0074] User B and user A are notified via various digital communication channels that the transaction has been canceled. In another embodiment, user A is notified via various mechanisms that user B has requested that funds be moved from user A to user Band funds are instantly moved from user A to user B.)
Kortina disclose If user A's financial institutions allow the transaction to go through, the remaining difference up to the total amount requested by user B is removed from the financial institution, credited to user B's account, and then the total amount requested by user B is moved from user A's account to user B's account. Kortina [0072]. However, Kortina does not explicitly disclose obtaining [a second payment provider] identifier associated with the second user based on the second profile and the authorization token; processing the payment from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on the [first payment provider] identifier and the second [payment provider] identifier; that the generated payment alert associated with the payment processed is using a messaging format for a messaging protocol of the online platform; and the payment alert adapted for the online platform in a message to at least one of the first user or the second user using the messaging protocol.
Bangah, on the other hand teaches:
obtaining a second payment provider identifier associated with the second user based on the first profile and the second; (See at least Bangah, [0019]; The value exchange system account is associated to a user's SNS account by the user's SNS account identifier, and makes use of the SNS account identifiers of a first user to enable the communication of a value exchange transaction with a second user.)
processing the payment from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on the [first payment provider] identifier and the second identifier; (See at least Bangah, [0042]; [0058]; [0086]. In this embodiment of the invention, the computer-implemented value exchange system still makes use of the SNS account identifier of each user to enable the communication of value exchange transactions between the users, through a use of a universally compatible.)
generating the payment alert associated with the payment processed using a messaging format for the messaging protocol of the network; and (See at least Bangah, [0042] a notification means for computer generation of notifications of the value exchange transactions between the first and second users, and for the electronic transmission of such notifications)
transmitting, using the message adapter, the payment alert adapted for the network in a message to at least one of the first user or the second user using the messaging protocol, wherein the first user remains within the network during the processing of the payment. (See at least Bangah, Fig. 1; [0042]; [0069] The value exchange system sends a notification of the value exchange transaction to the second user's SNS account; The notification confirming that a value exchange transaction has been successfully concluded, is typically an electronic message utilizing a SNS 's messaging function, and may additionally or alternatively be in the form of a computer generated message which is electronically transmitted, such as an e-mail or a short messaging service text message, to name a few. Other forms of electronic message generation and transmission may be envisioned by persons skilled in the art. Although such a notification may thus be external of the SNS, this is ancillary to the transaction itself which is conducted within the SNS login sessions of the parties to the transaction; )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kortina's invention where transactions are trusted and managed within a social network and include Bangah's in order to extend the capabilities of a trust based transaction system across different social networks, thereby enhancing its functionality. And to enable the communication of value exchange transactions between the users. Bangah, [0014].
The combination of Kortina and Bangah does not explicitly disclose the use of payment provider identifier to perform a transfer between users.
Templeton, on the other hand teaches the use of payment provider identifier to perform a transfer between users. (See at least Templeton, [0087]; This identifier may be referred to as the SPID or Service Provider Identifier. In one embodiment, the SPID may be used in conjunction with the intermediary account associations to direct a payment transaction to the desired destination. For example, AT&T may have an identifier ‘123’. If an AT&T payment is to be made, the intermediary account number (generally embossed on the payment card) would be provided along with the identifier ‘123’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Templeton’s teachings in order to provide standardization and efficiency.
The combination does not explicitly disclose, however, Huang teaches; accessing a message adapter configured to adapt a payment alert to a social messaging protocol associated with the social network, wherein the message adapter comprises an application programming interface (APD adapter specific to the social network (See at least Huang, [0025]; Here, system 100 includes network 102, message notification system 104 (including protocol adapter/API 105), As an example message notification system 104, including protocol adapter/API 106, may be implemented on one or more of servers 106-112. Configuring data 122-128 retrieved from one or more of servers 106-112, message notification system 104 may be implemented to generate messages (i.e., message notifications) to one or more of end devices 130-138.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Huang’s teachings in order to ensuring data consistency and reliability across systems.
Regarding claims 10 and 23: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the method of claim 9 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose further comprising determining the second user based on at least one of a message between the first user and the second user or a data post connecting the first and second users. (See at least Kortina Fig. 1a; [0027; The system creates a user profile for each user in the network of users. The trust based transaction system automatically establishes 420 a trusted relationship from user A to the newly established user, e.g., user B. To confirm this, a confirmation message is transmitted 422 to both user A and now new user B.)
Regarding claims 12 and 25: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the method of claim 9 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose wherein the permission granted by the first user further permits access to messaging data shared by the second user with the first user on the netwotk. (See at least Kortina, [0090] In one embodiment, the trust based transactions system enables users to have access to this data to evaluate the trustworthiness of a given user. For example, in one embodiment, a user, e.g., user A, can navigate to profile page of another user, e.g., user B, and have rendered on a screen of the computer system 100, various statistics and facts. The statistics and facts allow user A to evaluate an individual creditworthiness of user B.)
Regarding claims 13 and 26: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the method of claim 9 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose detecting a selection of a contact list of the first user that is associated with the network; and (See at least Kortina, [0060]; can then select 326 from the list based on the displayed results the user/users they would like to trust by clicking a button entitled 'trust this person'.)
responsive to the selection, causing a contact identifier of the second user in the contact
list to be presented with an option to process the payment. (See at least Kortina, [0046]; In this example, user A is using a computing system 100 that is a mobile phone. In a first instance, user A is not yet in the system, but proceeds to pay user B using a short message service (SMS) message. Specifically, user A agrees to pay user B $5.00 for utilities 191a.)
Regarding claims 15 and 28: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the method of claim 9. The combination further disclose wherein the payment is processed by a payment processor, wherein the permission granted by the first user permits the payment processor to post information on the network on behalf of the first user, and wherein the payment alert is posted by the payment processor based on the permission. (See at least Kortina, [0029];[0031];[0066] FIG. 1 shows a diagrammatic representation of a machine in the example form of a computer system 100 within which instructions 124 ( e.g., software) for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein may be executed.; In this example, Steve then establishes 526 a trusted financial link to Bill (an asynchronous trust; A message can be sent to Bill and/or Steve if the transaction is rejected.)
Regarding claim 16: Kortina disclose: A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1) to cause a machine to perform operations comprising:
receiving a payment request from a first user of a social network to a second user, wherein the payment request comprises a first identifier of the first user on the social network and a second identifier of the second user designated by the payment request; (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1a; Fig. 1d; [0046-0050]; [0084] user A agrees to pay user B $5.00 for utilities within the trust based transaction system wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second identifier of the second user having a second profile (i.e., unique identifier of user A and unique identifier of user B; the trust based transaction system updates the user profile of each user in the user profile database 225).)
determining an authorization token and a first payment provider identifier corresponding to the first identifier, wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows the machine to access profile data associated with the first user on the social network; (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1a; [0034]; [0040];[0090]; A and user B in common, where the same other user ( or users) have established financial trust links to both user A and user B; (5); The financial trust graph is a sum-total of data stored in the system database ( or databases) about individuals, their relationships to other entities, and their relationships to each other via trusted financial links), wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the online platform (i.e., user 1 creates 151a trusted financial link to user 2.).
accessing the profile data based on the authorization token; (See at least Kortina, [0057]; [0069]; one user, e.g., user A, trusts a specific other user, e.g., User B. Accordingly, user B will have the right to withdraw funds from user A, within the limits set by user A and/or the system user B (who has been trusted by user A) is asked if she would like to reciprocate that trust).)
generating the payment alert for the processed payment request that is adapted for the social network using a messaging format for the social network using a messaging format for [[a]]the social messaging protocol of the social network; and (See at least Kortina, [0074] User B and user A are notified via various digital communication channels that the transaction has been canceled. In another embodiment, user A is notified via various mechanisms that user B has requested that funds be moved from user A to user Band funds are instantly moved from user A to user B.)
transmitting, the payment alert (See at least Kortina, [0074] User B and user A are notified via various digital communication channels that the transaction has been canceled. In another embodiment, user A is notified via various mechanisms that user B has requested that funds be moved from user A to user Band funds are instantly moved from user A to user B.)
Kortina disclose If user A's financial institutions allow the transaction to go through, the remaining difference up to the total amount requested by user B is removed from the financial institution, credited to user B's account, and then the total amount requested by user B is moved from user A's account to user B's account. Kortina [0072]. However, Kortina does not explicitly disclose; determining a second payment provider identifier associated with the second user based on the profile data associated with the first user and the second identifier of the second user; processing the payment request based on the first payment provider identifier and the second payment provider identifier;
Bangah, on the other hand teaches; determining a second payment provider identifier associated with the second user based on the profile data associated with the first user and the second identifier of the second user; (See at least Bangah, [0019]; The value exchange system account is associated to a user's SNS account by the user's SNS account identifier, and makes use of the SNS account identifiers of a first user to enable the communication of a value exchange transaction with a second user.)
processing the payment request based on the first payment provider identifier and the second payment provider identifier; (See at least Bangah, [0042]; [0058]; [0086]. In this embodiment of the invention, the computer-implemented value exchange system still makes use of the SNS account identifier of each user to enable the communication of value exchange
transactions between the users, through a use of a universally compatible.)
transmitting, using the message adapter, the payment alert via the social network to at least one of the first user or the second user using the social messaging protocol, wherein the first user remains within the social network during the processing of the payment request. (See at least Bangah, Fig. 1; [0042]; [0069] The value exchange system sends a notification of the value exchange transaction to the second user's SNS account; The notification confirming that a value exchange transaction has been successfully concluded, is typically an electronic message utilizing a SNS 's messaging function, and may additionally or alternatively be in the form of a computer generated message which is electronically transmitted, such as an e-mail or a short messaging service text message, to name a few. Other forms of electronic message generation and transmission may be envisioned by persons skilled in the art. Although such a notification may thus be external of the SNS, this is ancillary to the transaction itself which is conducted within the SNS login sessions of the parties to the transaction; )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kortina's invention where transactions are trusted and managed within a social network and include Bangah's in order to extend the capabilities of a trust based transaction system across different social networks, thereby enhancing its functionality. And to enable the communication of value exchange transactions between the users. Bangah, [0014].
The combination of Kortina and Bangah does not explicitly disclose the use of payment provider identifier to perform a transfer between users.
Templeton, on the other hand teaches the use of payment provider identifier to perform a transfer between users. (See at least Templeton, [0087]; This identifier may be referred to as the SPID or Service Provider Identifier. In one embodiment, the SPID may be used in conjunction with the intermediary account associations to direct a payment transaction to the desired destination. For example, AT&T may have an identifier ‘123’. If an AT&T payment is to be made, the intermediary account number (generally embossed on the payment card) would be provided along with the identifier ‘123’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Templeton’s teachings in order to provide standardization and efficiency.
The combination does not explicitly disclose, however, Huang teaches; accessing a message adapter configured to adapt a payment alert to a social messaging protocol associated with the social network, wherein the message adapter comprises an application programming interface (APD adapter specific to the social network (See at least Huang, [0025]; Here, system 100 includes network 102, message notification system 104 (including protocol adapter/API 105), As an example message notification system 104, including protocol adapter/API 106, may be implemented on one or more of servers 106-112. Configuring data 122-128 retrieved from one or more of servers 106-112, message notification system 104 may be implemented to generate messages (i.e., message notifications) to one or more of end devices 130-138.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Huang’s teachings in order to ensuring data consistency and reliability across systems.
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16. The combination further disclose: wherein the profile data corresponds to a first profile of the first user with the social network, and wherein the second user is determined based on at least one of a message by the first profile on the social network or a data post by the first profile on the social network. (See at least Kortina Fig. 1a; [0027; The system creates a user profile for each user in the network of users. The trust based transaction system automatically establishes 420 a trusted relationship from user A to the newly established user, e.g., user B. To confirm this, a confirmation message is transmitted 422 to both user A and now new user B.)
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16. The combination further disclose: wherein the permission granted by the first user further permits access to data shared by the second user with the first user on the social network. (See at least Kortina, [0090] In one embodiment, the trust based transactions system enables users to have access to this data to evaluate the trustworthiness of a given user. For example, in one embodiment, a user, e.g., user A, can navigate to profile page of another user, e.g., user B, and have rendered on a screen of the computer system 100, various statistics and facts. The statistics and facts allow user A to evaluate an individual creditworthiness of user B.)
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16. The combination further disclose:
detecting a selection of a contact list of the first user via the social network; (See at least Kortina, [0060]; can then select 326 from the list based on the displayed results the user/users they would like to trust by clicking a button entitled 'trust this person'.)
and responsive to the selection, causing a contact identifier of the second user in the contact list to be presented with an option associated with processing the payment request. (See at least Kortina, [0046]; In this example, user A is using a computing system 100 that is a mobile phone. In a first instance, user A is not yet in the system, but proceeds to pay user B using a short message service (SMS) message. Specifically, user A agrees to pay user B $5.00 for utilities 191a.)
Claim 11, 18 and 24 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kortina, Bangah and Templeton as applied to claim 9, 16 and 22 above, and further in view of Osterwalder (US 2011/0173443 A1), in view of Ryali et al (US20120015630 A1)
Regarding claims 11, 18 and 24: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose: accessing a message adapter at a gateway device for the online platform, wherein the message adapter is configured to adapt the payment alert to the messaging protocol; and authenticating with the gateway device using the authorization token, wherein the authenticating authorizes the message adapter to adapt the payment alert for the online platform, and wherein the transmitting the payment alert further uses the message adapter via the gateway device.
Osterwalder, on the other hand teaches:
accessing a message adapter for the online platform, wherein the message adapter is configured to adapt the payment alert to the messaging protocol; and (See at least Osterwalder, [0023]; In an embodiment the adapter 114 verifies the message protocol, and reformats the incoming message into a common internal message (IM) having an Internal Message Format (IMF) that is different from the format, or protocol, of the incoming message. Reformatting or translating the message into an IM allows the SES 10 to handle any of the TCP/IP message protocols in a simple and secure manner.)
and wherein the transmitting the payment alert further uses the message adapter. (See at least Osterwalder, [0023]; In an embodiment the adapter 114 verifies the message protocol, and reformats the incoming message into a common internal message (IM) having an Internal Message Format (IMF) that is different from the format, or protocol, of the incoming message. Reformatting or translating the message into an IM allows the SES 10 to handle any of the TCP/IP message protocols in a simple and secure manner.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Osterwalder teachings in order to provide the users with the ability of keep using their social network to receive notifications from a different one, and doing this the user would not need to leave his social network to received said notifications.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a gateway device and accessing a message adapter at a gateway device; authenticating with the gateway device using the authorization token, wherein the authenticating authorizes the message adapter to adapt the payment alert for the online platform, the transmitting the payment alert the gateway device.
Ryali, on the other hand, teaches a gateway device and accessing a message adapter at a gateway device; authenticating with the gateway device using the authorization token, wherein the authenticating authorizes the message adapter to adapt the payment alert for the online platform, the transmitting the payment alert the gateway device. (See at least Ryali, Abs.; [0006]; [0020] a gateway of Alert notification system configured to facilitate authentication and authorization of alert originator applications, acquisition of software tokens corresponding to alert originator applications, validation of software tokens and validation of alert requests. The alert notification module further comprises a profiler configured to receive validated alert request from the gateway, to acquire software templates corresponding to alert messages and to customize alert messages based on the templates.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Ryali’s teachings in order to facilitate communication between devices.
Claim 14, 21 and 27 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kortina, Bangah and Templeton as applied to claim 9, 16 and 22 above, and further in view of Ryali et al (US20120015630 A1)
Regarding claims 14, 21 and 27: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose wherein receiving the payment request is performed using an application (See at least Kortina Fig. 1a; [0036] In one embodiment, verification includes third-party social and communications identity of a user 140a-c.)
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a gateway device that are in communication with one or more devices of the netweok.
Ryali, on the other hand, teaches a gateway device that are in communication with one or more devices of the online platform. (See at least Ryali [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Ryali’s teachings in order to facilitate communication between devices.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Specification:
Applicant amendments has corrected the previous identified issue. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant amendments has corrected the previous identified issue. Accordingly, the previous 112(a) rejection is withdrawn. Note: the claims currently have 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant asserts that that the limitations of the amended claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application and are thus statutory under Step 2A, Prong Two. Specifically, Applicant indicates the limitations relate to a specific technical usage (a message adapter having an application programming interface (API) adapter specific to a network for adapting payment alerts to a messaging protocol (Remarks, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the message adapter does not have sufficient structure on Applicant disclosure, furthermore, actions performed by the message adapter is outside of the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant asserts that “Kortina does not describe any message adapter, much less an API adapter specific to a network for adapting a payment alert to a messaging protocol”. Remarks, p. 13. Examiner notes that the message adapter is outside of the scope of the claims and does not have patentable weight. Furthermore, as indicated above, in the claim interpretation section, the claimed “message adapter” lack of sufficient structure described on Applicant’s disclosure. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution and upon further consideration of the newly introduced language, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kortina, Bangah, Templeton and Huang.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights