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 .
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action / First Action on the Merits.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The five information disclosure statements (IDS) filed have been considered.
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-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of sending an alert to a user regarding a transaction rule violation without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. The determination of a transaction being out of pattern, presenting rules, confirming selection, and determining a transaction violates a rule are all limitations that as a whole capture a concept that is directly defined by the above abstract idea grouping and sub-groupings. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims capture an abstract idea grouping of mental processes including judgement opinion and evaluation and carrying out said concepts using pen-and-paper. as will later be analyzed under Step 2A, Prong II, the claimed scope is one that can be carried out using a human mind. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea that can be practiced using a human mind.
Claim 10, in pertinent part, recites:
A method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system and based on a transaction history of a user, that the transaction history of the user is inconsistent with transaction histories of at least one other user;
creating… and based upon the transaction history associated with the user and based upon the transaction histories of the at least one other user, a payment control user profile comprising one or more payment control rules for determining whether to allow or restrict transactions associated with the user;
presenting… in a payment control dashboard, a user interface comprising information associated with the payment control user profile and at least one payment control rule of the one or more payment control rules;
receiving… one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule;
modifying… the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections;
responsive to the one or more selections, modifying… by the computing system, the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile;
identifying… a location of a user device that is associated with the payment control user profile;
determining… that a current transaction of the user violates the modified at least one payment control rule based on the location of the user device being used to make the current transaction; and
in response to determining that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, sending… an alert to the user device to indicate the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a computing system, emphasized above in bold per claim 10 which is selected for analysis. The following additional elements are recited in claims 1, and 16 accordingly: one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions. The a payment control dashboard is not deemed an additional element because under BRI, it is not clear whether it is part of the claimed system or part of a user device that allows the user to approve or deny the profile information / transaction information. Even if a payment control dashboard is deemed an additional element, it is recited at a high level of generality just as the rest of the additional elements identified above. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, identify or analyzing data, generating data, and determining and outcome. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. The additional elements are used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea; automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The abstract idea is also as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The claimed scope amounts to merely adding extra solution activity to the abstract idea. Likewise, the claims seem to simply link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claims 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 elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,516,035 to Moritz et al. (Moritz), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0019352 to Shrivastava (Shrivastava).
Per claims 1, 11 and 16, Moritz teaches all of the following claim limitations:
A system, comprising [Abstract]:
one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively [Col. 10, Ln. 1-28, and Figure 2]:
determine, based on a transaction history of a user, that the transaction history of the user is inconsistent with transaction histories of at least one other user (using other user transaction data of other users, determining that the user data is not the same or related) [Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9];
create, based upon the transaction history associated with the user and based upon the transaction histories of the at least one other user, a payment control user profile comprising one or more payment control rules for determining whether to allow or restrict transactions associated with the user (a user profile is developed for the user based on historical transaction data of other users and the user/user device data) [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13];
Moritz teaches identify a location of a user device that is associated with the payment control user profile [Col. 24, Ln. 44-67 and Col. 25, Ln. 1-22];
Moritz teaches determine that a current transaction of the user violates the modified at least one payment control rule based on the location of the user device being used to make the current transaction [Col. 24, Ln. 44-67 and Col. 25, Ln. 1-22 and claim 6]; and
Moritz teaches in response to determining that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, send an alert to the user device to indicate the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule [Col. 24, Ln. 44-67 and Col. 25, Ln. 1-22 and claim 6].
Moritz does not explicitly disclose:
Although Moritz teaches sending a notification to a user device regarding a transaction and rule for said transaction and receiving a response from the user, as indicated above and in Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15, Moritz does not explicitly disclose present, in a payment control dashboard, a user interface comprising information associated with the payment control user profile and at least one payment control rule of the one or more payment control rules.
Shrivastava teaches present, in a payment control dashboard, a user interface comprising information associated with the payment control user profile and at least one payment control rule of the one or more payment control rules (user is able to view the compiled profile including transaction rules and modify accordingly) regarding a transaction rules/user profile and the user is able to alter, using their mobile device, transaction rules/profile) [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach notifying the user by sending a proposed card control rule/user profile to the user’s device/interface/application in motivation of allowing the user to easily review the rules/profile and determine how to appropriately respond to the alert. The use of a control dashboard is not part of the claimed scope and has no patentable weight because the claimed scope is directed to a computing system not including the user device that would include said dashboard. However, the limitation is rejected based on the above rational to expedite prosecution. For emphasis, the sending of the rule has patentable weight but to where the rule is sent can be regarded as simply another entity, meaning sending the alert by the claimed system to another entity. The specifics of another entity are not part of the claimed scope so that is the portion that has no function or weight.
Although Moritz teaches sending a notification to a user device and the user viewing the notifications including transaction rules, Moritz does not explicitly disclose receive one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule.
Shrivastava teaches receive one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach receive one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule in order to update the transaction rules associated with the card or payment method, thus also enhancing user experience.
Although Moritz teaching notifying a customer of transaction data and the user viewing notifications on their mobile device, Moritz does not explicitly disclose modify the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections.
Shrivastava teaches modify the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach modify the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections in order to update the transaction rules associated with the card or payment method, thus also enhancing user experience.
Although Moritz teaching notifying a customer of transaction data and the user viewing notifications on their mobile device, Moritz does not explicitly disclose responsive to the one or more selections, modify the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile.
Shrivastava teaches responsive to the one or more selections, modify the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach responsive to the one or more selections, modify the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile in order to update the transaction rules associated with the card or payment method, thus also enhancing user experience.
Per claim 2, 11, and 17, Moritz teaches wherein the transaction history of the user is a transaction history of a payment card of the user within a specified period of time [Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9].
Per claim 3, 12, and 18, Moritz teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to classify the transaction history of the user based upon a plurality of transaction types (The type of data taught by Moritz includes a plurality of data resulting in obviously utilizing any data to help generate the rules/profile) [Col. 8, Ln. 54-67; Col. 9, Ln. 1-20; Col. 23, Ln. 34-53].
Per claim 4, Moritz teaches wherein the transaction history of the user includes past transactions involving a plurality of payment cards of the user [Col. 11, Ln. 6-67; Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9].
Per claim 5, 14, and 19, Moritz teaches wherein the determination that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule is based on a comparison of the location of the user device with a location of a merchant [Col. 24, Ln. 49-67].
Per claim 7, 13, Although Moritz teaches a user device having a GUI to allow user selections, Moritz does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more selections to update the payment control user profile comprises at least one selection modifying information associated with the user, the information associated with the user comprising demographic information.
Shrivastava teaches wherein the one or more selections to update the payment control user profile comprises at least one selection modifying information associated with the user, the information associated with the user comprising demographic information [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach wherein the one or more selections to update the payment control user profile comprises at least one selection modifying information associated with the user, the information associated with the user comprising demographic information in motivation of providing the user with an ability to modify data such as user geographic location data.
Per claim 8, Although Moritz teaches a user device having a GUI to allow user selections, Moritz does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display the payment control user profile on the user device.
Shrivastava teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display the payment control user profile on the user device [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device and displaying data on user device using a GUI based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach displaying payment control user profile in order to update enhance user experience and give the user control over the rules.
Per claim 9, Although Moritz teaches a user device having a GUI to allow user selections, Moritz does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: present, via the payment control dashboard, the one or more payment control rules and a geo-enable feature; and accept, via the payment control dashboard, a user selection to geo-enable the one or more payment control rules.
Shrivastava teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: present, via the payment control dashboard, the one or more payment control rules and a geo-enable feature; and accept, via the payment control dashboard, a user selection to geo-enable the one or more payment control rules [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device and displaying data on user device using a GUI based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach presenting the rules and controls to the user including location in motivation of enhancing user experience and give the user control over the rules.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritz, in view of Shrivastava, and in further view of International Application Publication WO 2011/008815 to Scragg (Scragg).
Per claim 6, 15, and 20, Although Moritz teaches providing rules customized based on user previous transaction data and also other users related to the user, Moritz in view of Scragg do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more payment control rules comprise a first payment control rule associated with a first merchant and a second payment control rule associated with a second merchant, wherein the first payment control rule is more restrictive than the second payment control rule based on a determination that a risk of fraud associated with the first merchant is higher than a risk of fraud associated with the second merchant.
Scragg teaches wherein the one or more payment control rules comprise a first payment control rule associated with a first merchant and a second payment control rule associated with a second merchant, wherein the first payment control rule is more restrictive than the second payment control rule based on a determination that a risk of fraud associated with the first merchant is higher than a risk of fraud associated with the second merchant [Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0007, and 0045-0048, 0056-0057, and 0063-0064 and 0069 including reference to further prior art].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, in view of Shrivastava, which disclose assigning specific rules to user accounts based on data including user transaction data and other users’ transaction data, to include the teachings of Scragg to explicitly disclose that the rules set are based on fraud determination of merchants with those with higher fraud having stricter rules in motivation of increasing security measures in authorizing transactions.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 of the instant Applicant is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613. Although claim 1 of the instant Application is not identical to claim 1 of Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same scope of invention. The instant Application recites a broader scope compared to Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613. Removal of the additional limitations in Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613 would amount to the claimed scope of the instant application. Such removal of limitation to amount to the instant claimed scope is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
PGPUB 2016/0063497 to Grant et al. teaches user inface at a user device, graphical interface, that allows users to interact with transaction rules to update, modify, alter transaction rules and send said selection to a control system.
PGPUB 2017/0357971 to Pitz teaches transaction authentication based on rules including fraudulent determination using location, activity, and updating said fraudulent determination constantly based on data. Pitz also sending users alerts regarding a transaction and the user providing additional transaction information to settle a transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights