DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,417 B2, hereinafter the ‘417 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Each of the ‘417 patent as well as this presently claimed invention are directed towards encrypted messaging between a buyer and a merchant. To this end, both of these inventions recite equivalent steps and/or components. However, while the invention of the ‘417 patent recites several steps and components missing in this instant application. Additionally, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Independent claims 1 and 16 of the ‘417 patent recite:
receiving, via a computing device including a payment portal, an encrypted payment message from a buyer, the payment message relating to a transaction with a merchant;
wherein the encrypted payment message:
is received by the payment portal directly from the buyer in an electronic format, or is received from a proxy directed by the buyer, wherein the proxy is one of an issuer or a payment provider;
wherein the payment portal includes:
a plurality of parsing algorithms including a first parsing algorithm and a second parsing algorithm;
parsing, in the computing device and using the first parsing algorithm, the encrypted payment message to obtain merchant identifying information;
wherein the merchant identifying information is associated in the payment portal with the second parsing algorithm;
parsing, in the computing device and using the second parsing algorithm, the encrypted payment message to obtain payment information defined by the transaction;
wherein the payment portal includes a plurality of payment algorithms;
selecting, via the payment portal and using the at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information, a selected one of the payment algorithms from the plurality of payment algorithms;
wherein the selected payment algorithm is associated in the payment portal with at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information;
wherein the payment information includes a payment amount to be paid by the buyer to the merchant;
compiling a settlement output, via the payment portal and using the selected payment algorithm; wherein the settlement output includes the payment amount;
wherein the payment portal is in communication with at least one of a website of a payment application provider, a server of the payment application provider, an issuer website of the issuer, or an issuer server of the issuer;
encrypting the settlement output, in the computer device and using the payment algorithm;
transmitting, via the payment portal, a payment authorization request to the at least one of the payment application provider or the issuer;
wherein the payment authorization request is associated in the payment portal with the settlement output;
receiving, via the payment portal, a response to the payment authorization request from the at least one of the website of the payment application provider, the server of the payment application provide, the issuer website of the issuer, or the issuer server of the issuer.
Independent claim 1 of this instant invention differs since it omits claim limitations including:
wherein the payment portal includes:
a plurality of parsing algorithms including a first parsing algorithm and a second parsing algorithm;
parsing, in the computing device and using the first parsing algorithm, the encrypted payment message to obtain merchant identifying information;
wherein the merchant identifying information is associated in the payment portal with the second parsing algorithm;
parsing, in the computing device and using the second parsing algorithm, the encrypted payment message to obtain payment information defined by the transaction;
wherein the payment portal includes a plurality of payment algorithms;
selecting, via the payment portal and using the at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information, a selected one of the payment algorithms from the plurality of payment algorithms;
wherein the selected payment algorithm is associated in the payment portal with at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information;
wherein the payment information includes a payment amount to be paid by the buyer to the merchant;
compiling a settlement output, via the payment portal and using the selected payment algorithm; wherein the settlement output includes the payment amount;
wherein the payment portal is in communication with at least one of a website of a payment application provider, a server of the payment application provider, an issuer website of the issuer, or an issuer server of the issuer;
encrypting the settlement output, in the computer device and using the payment algorithm;
wherein the payment authorization request is associated in the payment portal with the settlement output;
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims this instant invention by removing the limitations directed to parsing and payment algorithms, resulting generally in the claims of the present application, since the claims of the present application and the claims recited in the ‘417 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In this case, the limitation as claimed by the invention is merely an improvement over a base device, product, or method as taught by the references. The specifications also teach a comparable device improved in the same way. The technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way and the result of the improvement is predictable. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ‘417 patent with the omitted steps of this instant application because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1:
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
receiving, via a computing device including a payment portal, an encrypted payment message from a buyer, the encrypted payment message relating to a transaction with a merchant; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the encrypted payment message:
is received by the payment portal directly from the buyer in an electronic format, or is received from a proxy directed by the buyer, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the proxy is one of an issuer or a payment provider; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
transmitting, via the payment portal, a payment authorization request to the at least one of a website of a payment application provider, a server of the payment application provider, a website of the issuer, or a server of the issuer; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, via the payment portal, a response to the payment authorization request from the at least one of the website of the payment application provider, the server of the payment application provider, the website of the issuer, or the server of the issuer. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-20 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1:
… a computing device
…a server
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 1-11, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (USPGP 2017/0300879 A1), hereinafter SUBRAMANIAN, in view of Fok et al. (USPGP 2012/0158566 A1), hereinafter FOK.
Claim 1:
SUBRAMANIAN as shown below discloses the following limitations:
receiving, via a computing device including a payment portal, an encrypted payment message from a buyer, the encrypted payment message relating to a transaction with a merchant; (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0027, 0038)
wherein the encrypted payment message:
is received by the payment portal directly from the buyer in an electronic format, or is received from a proxy directed by the buyer, (see at least Figure 2 as well as associated and related text)
wherein the proxy is one of an issuer or a payment provider; (see at least Figure 2 as well as associated and related text)
transmitting, via the payment portal, a payment authorization request to the at least one of a website of a payment application provider, a server of the payment application provider, a website of the issuer, or a server of the issuer; (see at least paragraphs 0018, 0027, 0068)
receiving, via the payment portal, a response to the payment authorization request from the at least one of the website of the payment application provider, the server of the payment application provider, the website of the issuer, or the server of the issuer. (see at least paragraphs 0028, 0068)
SUBRAMANIAN does not specifically disclose encryption. However, FOK, in at least paragraphs 0036, 0116, and 0124 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SUBRAMANIAN with the technique of FOK because, “The cryptographic component facilitates the secure accessing of resources on the TRP and facilitates the access of secured resources on remote systems; i.e., it may act as a client and/or server of secured resources.” (FOK: paragraph 0116). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 2:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
parsing, via the payment portal, the encrypted payment message to obtain merchant identifying information and to obtain payment information defined by the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0027, 0040 and 0048.
Claim 3:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
obtaining, from the encrypted payment message, merchant identifying information and payment information defined by the transaction
wherein the payment portal includes a plurality of payment algorithms;
selecting, via the payment portal and using the at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information, a selected one of the payment algorithms from the plurality of payment algorithms;
compiling a settlement output, via the payment portal and using the selected payment algorithm;
wherein the settlement output includes a payment amount to be paid by the buyer to the merchant.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0027, 0040 and 0048-0051.
Claim 4:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the selected payment algorithm is associated in the payment portal with at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0027, 0040 and 0048.
Claim 5:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the settlement output includes the payment amount and at least one of an adjusted interchange rate or an adjusted interchange fee.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0031, 0041, and 0058.
Claim 6:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
encrypting the settlement output, in the computer device and using the selected payment algorithm.
See at least paragraphs 0005, 0027, and 0048-0051. SUBRAMANIAN does not specifically disclose encryption. However, FOK, in at least paragraphs 0036, 0116, and 0124 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SUBRAMANIAN with the technique of FOK because, “The cryptographic component facilitates the secure accessing of resources on the TRP and facilitates the access of secured resources on remote systems; i.e., it may act as a client and/or server of secured resources.” (FOK: paragraph 0116). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 7:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
generating a merchant notification message, in the computing device and using at least one of the settlement output, the payment authorization request, the merchant identifying information, or the payment information;
wherein the merchant notification message includes:
a notification of approval of the payment authorization request, and the payment amount; and
transmitting the merchant notification message to the merchant, via the payment portal.
See at least paragraphs 0046, 0054, 0055, and 0056.
Claim 8:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the merchant notification message includes one of an adjusted interchange rate and an adjusted interchange fee.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0031, 0041, 0055, and 0058.
Claim 9:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
determining, in the computing device, an adjusted interchange fee defined by an adjusted interchange rate and payment information defined by the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0043.
Claim 10:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
selecting, via the payment portal, a selected settlement algorithm from a plurality of settlement algorithms;
wherein the selected settlement algorithm is associated in the payment portal with at least one of merchant identifying information or payment information defined by the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0052-0055.
Claim 11:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
parsing, in the computing device, the encrypted payment message to obtain an interchange adjustment factor.
See at least paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0043.
Claim 13:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the payment portal includes a plurality of interchange rate tables; (see at least paragraphs 0048-0051)
the method further comprising:
selecting, via the payment portal, a selected interchange rate table from a plurality of interchange rate tables; (see at least paragraph 0019)
wherein the selected interchange rate table is associated in the payment portal with merchant identifying information and payment information defined by the transaction. (see at least paragraphs 0005, 0040, 0041, 0048-0051)
Claim 14:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information includes an interchange adjustment factor defined by the transaction;
the method further comprising:
determining, in the computing device and using the selected interchange rate table and the interchange adjustment factor, an adjusted interchange rate.
See at least paragraphs 0020, 0031, and 0041.
Claim 15:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the selected interchange rate table is associated in the payment portal with the at least one of a commodity, a market segment, a product segment, or a service segment;
the method further comprising:
parsing, via the payment portal, the encrypted payment message to obtain merchant identifying information and to obtain payment information defined by the transaction;
parsing, in the computing device, at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information defined by the transaction, to obtain an indication of at least one of the commodity, the market segment, the product segment, or the service segment associated with the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0057-0058.
Claim 16:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction includes a plurality of transactions including a first transaction and a second transaction;
wherein the first transaction includes a first interchange adjustment factor;
wherein the second transaction includes a second interchange adjustment factor;
the method further comprising:
determining a first adjusted interchange rate for the first transaction, in the computing device and using the selected interchange rate table and the first interchange adjustment factor; and
determining a second adjusted interchange rate for the second transaction, in the computing device and using the selected interchange rate table and the second interchange adjustment factor.
See at least paragraphs 0020, 0031, and 0041.
Claim 17:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first adjusted interchange rate is different than the second adjusted interchange rate, the method further comprising:
adjudicating, in the computing device and using a settlement algorithm associated in the payment portal with at least one of the merchant identifying information or the payment information, the first adjusted interchange rate and the second adjusted interchange rate to determine an adjudicated interchange rate;
using the adjudicated interchange rate as the adjusted interchange rate for the plurality of transactions.
See at least paragraph 0023.
Claim 20:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
parsing, in the computing device, payment information defined by the transaction to obtain at least one of days sales outstanding (DSO) for the transaction, or a payment amount for the transaction;
determining, via the payment portal, an interchange adjustment factor defined by at least one of the days sales outstanding (DSO) for the transaction or the payment amount for the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0049, 0052, and 0041.
Claims 12, 18, 19 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUBRAMANIAN/FOK and further in view of Examiner’s OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claims 12, 18:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN/FOK does not specifically disclose:
wherein the interchange adjustment factor is agreed to by the buyer, the merchant and the issuer.
wherein the adjudicating using the settlement algorithm is defined by an agreement between the buyer, the merchant and the issuer.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the business arts to have all parties agree to terms of the transaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK with the technique of agreed arrangements because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 19:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN/FOK does not specifically disclose:
wherein the payment portal includes a merchant assigned email assigned to the merchant;
the method further comprising:
determining, via the payment portal, whether merchant identifying information defined by the encrypted payment message matches the merchant assigned email of the merchant;
wherein no match is determined, returning the encrypted payment message to the buyer.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the electronic communication arts to return email as undeliverable if not valid email address is found. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SUBRAMANIAN/FOK with the technique of bouncing back emails because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
PayPal. “Payflow Pro Developer’s Guide.” (October 2009). Retrieved online 12/19/2025. https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/en_US/developer/docs/pdf/pp_payflowpro_guide.pdf
PayWay. “PayWay Classic API Developers Guide.” (Jan 25, 2006). Retrieved online 12/19/2025. https://www.payway.com.au/docs/api-developers-guide/
Trend Micro. “Encryption For Email Gateway.” (2010). Retrieved online 12/19/2025. https://docs.trendmicro.com/o-help/ent/tmeeg/v5.5/en-us/tmeeg_5.5_ag.pdf
Foreign Art:
BERG et al. “Network Payment System E.g. For Transacting Sale Of Merchandise Over Internet Loads And Uses Smart Card For Payment Of Goods And Services Purchased On=line With Client Module Controlling Interaction With Consumer And Interfaces To Card Reader Which Accepts Users Smart Card, Allowing Loading And Debiting Of Card.” (WO 9849658 A1)
HUANG et al. “Computer System For Real-time Electronic Service Processing Adjustments In Fast-paced Electronic Service Environment, Has Updating Lifetime Score For User Account And Adjusting Response Threshold For Assessment Checkpoint Based On Updated Lifetime Score.” (WO 2023/108605 A1)
HABEEB et al. “SYSTEM, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND METHOD FOR AUTHORIZATION RATE PREDICTION.” (WO 2020/102327 A1)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)