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 action is in reply to the application filed on 06/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 for instance, recites, in part, A computer-implemented method of detecting fraudulent online transactions based on location data, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, transaction data associated with an online transaction performed via a first user device associated with a user; determining a first location of the first user device for a time associated with the online transaction; receiving a device record from a second computing device associated with the user; determining a second location of the user at the time associated with the online transaction, based at least in part on the device record; and modifying a status of the online transaction, in a digital record, based at least in part on the first location of the first user device and the second location of the user at the time associated with the online transaction. These limitations are directed to reducing false positive fraud alerts for online transaction-business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11, for instance, recites, in part, A system for detecting fraudulent online transactions based on location data comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving transaction data associated with an online transaction performed via a first user device, wherein the transaction data includes a transaction time; determining a first location of the first user device for a time associated with the transaction time; receiving a device record from a second computing device associated with the first user device; determining a second location of the second computing device at the time associated with the transaction time; and authorizing the online transaction or flagging the online transaction as fraudulent, based at least in part on the first location of the first user device and the second location of the second computing device at the time associated with the transaction time. These limitations are directed to reducing false positive fraud alerts for online transaction -business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a system, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, a first user device, second computing device recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, comparing and determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (1) all they need is a programmed general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea and (2) there is no technological improvement
For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Accordingly, these 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to reduce false positive fraud alerts for online financial transaction is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2, 12 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite retrieving GPS data and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 3 and 13 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining a device record and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 4 and 14 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining that the accumulation value has increased towards the financial goal amount and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 5 and 15 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining a device record and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 6 and 16 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite third computing device and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 7 and 17 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite receiving a plurality of device records and a time stamp and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 8 and 18 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite vehicle telematics and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 9 and 19 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite time associated with an online transaction and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 10 and 20 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite sensor system and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as such as such as one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable media, user devices) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan (US 10,373, 160 B2) in view of Babitch et al. (US 2012/0191614 A1).
Claim 1, for instance, is disclosed: A computer-implemented method of detecting fraudulent online transactions based on location data, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, transaction data associated with an online transaction performed via a first user device associated with a user (Ranganathan, Col. 3, ln 14-24 “ The location of the user's cell phone may be obtained, in one embodiment, after a payment provider, such as PayPal, Inc. of San Jose, Calif., receives a payment request from a device. The payment request may be from a merchant or another user device, where the payment request includes information about the transaction, the seller or merchant location, an amount of the transaction. The location may be determined through a location service associated with the device from which the payment request is sent from or other means, such as a merchant ID associated with a merchant address stored in the payment provider database” & 61-67 “The location of the credit card or payment transaction may include either a physical location of a merchant (e.g., a physical address of the merchant or an IP address of a point-of-sale (POS) terminal that is resolved to a geolocation), or a geolocation of an IP address of a device (e.g., a computer) used to execute the transaction by the user, merchant, or another purchaser.”) A financial transaction is requested and the transaction is verified for an authorization via an online, or IP address, location;
determining a first location of the first user device for a time associated with the online transaction (Col. 4 ln 1-10, “Knowing the location of a user associated with the payment account or the cardholder and comparing it to the location of the transaction, both in the physical world (location of the point of sale terminal) or in an online world (geo IP location of the computer/device used in the transaction), at the time of the transaction can vastly improve decision making on the legitimacy of the transaction. Because a user is assumed to always be near or have in the user's possession the user's cell phone, the location of the cell phone is assumed to be the user's approximate location”) the first location is associated with the geo IP location associated with the user device at the approximate transaction time; receiving a device record from a second computing device associated with the user (Ranganathan, Col. 5 ln 4-10 “At the time of the transaction, the transaction device (such as a user computer, a merchant terminal/server) IP address is captured and passed through with the transaction parameters. The IP address is then resolved to a geo location. The geo location of the transaction device (e.g., the user's computer) is then compared with the last known location of the mobile device associated with the account.”) The mobile device is the first device and the transaction device is the second computing device;
Ranganathan does not disclose the following; however, Babitch teaches
determining a second location of the user at the time associated with the online transaction, based at least in part on the device record (Babitch, see at least par. [0025] “In another example, buyer 238 may travel with his or her cellular phone (i.e. the transaction device) from Philadelphia, Pa. to Los Angeles, Calif. while on vacation. If the buyer 238 attempts to make a purchase in Los Angeles, Calif., the purchase may still be authorized (i.e. if the time stamp information does not raise suspicion) or possibly restricted to a certain monetary amount.”) The second location is determined to bet at LA, California based on record stored in database;
and modifying a status of the online transaction, in a digital record, based at least in part on the first location of the first user device and the second location of the user at the time associated with the online transaction (Babitch, par. [0027] “If the buyer and seller devices are a fixed terminals connected over a land line, then their computed locations may be compared to valid locations stored in a database at transaction processing center 202. However, if the buyer or seller devices are mobile terminals, then their computed locations may be analyzed by transaction processing center 202 to determine if their locations are within an approximate range of valid/invalid locations” & par. [0029] “Specifically, at least one of buyer device 238 and seller device 222 computes and transmits its respective location along with identification information and a time stamp to transaction processing center 202. Transaction processing center 202 then either authorizes, restricts or denies the transaction between the buyer and seller”) The database at the processing center corresponds to digital record and could be “modified” such as authorizing, restricting, or denying.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of modifying a digital record or database by Babitch with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan to help better improving transaction security based on location information (Babitch, Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 11. Ranganathan teaches: A system for detecting fraudulent online transactions based on location data comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions (Col. 8 ln 24-34 “) User device 610, transaction device 635, merchant server 640, and payment provider server 670 may each include one or more processors, memories, and other appropriate components for executing instructions such as program code and/or data stored on one or more computer readable mediums to implement the various applications, data, and steps described herein. For example, such instructions may be stored in one or more computer readable media such as memories or data storage devices internal and/or external to various components of system 600, and/or accessible over network 660.”) that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving transaction data associated with an online transaction performed via a first user device, wherein the transaction data includes a transaction time;
determining a first location of the first user device for a time associated with the transaction time (Ranganathan, Col. 4 ln 1-10 “Knowing the location of a user associated with the payment account or the cardholder and comparing it to the location of the transaction, both in the physical world (location of the point of sale terminal) or in an online world (geo IP location of the computer/device used in the transaction), at the time of the transaction can vastly improve decision making on the legitimacy of the transaction.”) ;
receiving a device record from a second computing device associated with the first user device (Ranganathan, Col. 5 ln 4-10 “At the time of the transaction, the transaction device (such as a user computer, a merchant terminal/server) IP address is captured and passed through with the transaction parameters. The IP address is then resolved to a geo location. The geo location of the transaction device (e.g., the user's computer) is then compared with the last known location of the mobile device associated with the account.”) The mobile device is the first device and the transaction device is the second computing device;
Ranganathan does not disclose the following; however, Babitch teaches:
determining a second location of the second computing device at the time associated with the transaction time (Babitch, see at least par. [0025] “] In another example, buyer 238 may travel with his or her cellular phone (i.e. the transaction device) from Philadelphia, Pa. to Los Angeles, Calif. while on vacation. If the buyer 238 attempts to make a purchase in Los Angeles, Calif., the purchase may still be authorized (i.e. if the time stamp information does not raise suspicion) or possibly restricted to a certain monetary amount.”) The second location is determined to bet at LA, California based on record stored in database;
and authorizing the online transaction or flagging the online transaction as fraudulent, based at least in part on the first location of the first user device and the second location of the second computing device at the time associated with the transaction time (Babitch, par. [0027] “If the buyer and seller devices are a fixed terminals connected over a land line, then their computed locations may be compared to valid locations stored in a database at transaction processing center 202. However, if the buyer or seller devices are mobile terminals, then their computed locations may be analyzed by transaction processing center 202 to determine if their locations are within an approximate range of valid/invalid locations” & par. [0029] “Specifically, at least one of buyer device 238 and seller device 222 computes and transmits its respective location along with identification information and a time stamp to transaction processing center 202. Transaction processing center 202 then either authorizes, restricts or denies the transaction between the buyer and seller”) The database at the processing center corresponds to digital record and could be “modified” such as authorizing, restricting, or denying.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of modifying a digital record or database by Babitch with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan to help better improving transaction security based on location information (Babitch, Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 2 and 12 are grouped together. Ranganathan in view of Babitch teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Ranganathan discloses: wherein determining the second location of the user comprises: retrieving GPS data from the device record; and determining that the user was interacting with the second computing device at a time associated with the device record (Ranganathan, Col. 5 ln 4-12 “ At the time of the transaction, the transaction device (such as a user computer, a merchant terminal/server) IP address is captured and passed through with the transaction parameters. The IP address is then resolved to a geo location. The geo location of the transaction device (e.g., the user's computer) is then compared with the last known location of the mobile device associated with the account. Any distances over a threshold number of miles may result in a flag and/or alert.”).
Claims 3 and 13 are grouped together. Claim 3. Ranganathan in view of Babitch teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Babitch discloses: wherein determining the second location of the user comprises: determining, based at least in part on the device record, an identifier of a network access point or a signal strength associated with the second computing device; and determining a geographic location associated with the second computing device, based on at least one of the identifier of the network access point or the signal strength (Babitch, par. [0023] “ Transaction authenticator 212 may, for example, verify the identification information received from just the buyer device, or both the buyer device and seller device. Transaction authenticator 212 may also analyze the locations and time stamps of the buyer and seller devices. For example, locations of the buyer and seller devices may be compared to known valid/invalid locations stored in the database, while the time stamps may be compared to a known clock. Transaction authenticator 212 may then either authorize a transaction between buyer 238 and seller 222, deny the transaction, or place restrictions on the transaction.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of determining network and geographic location by Babitch with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan in view of Babitch to help better improving transaction security based on location information. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 4 and 14 are grouped together. The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Furthermore, Ranganathan teaches: wherein determining the second location of the user comprises: determining, based at least in part on the device record, a fixed installation location of the second computing device; and determining that the user was interacting with the second computing device at a time associated with the device record (Ranganathan, Col. 3 ln 61-67 “The location of the credit card or payment transaction may include either a physical location of a merchant (e.g., a physical address of the merchant or an IP address of a point-of-sale (POS) terminal that is resolved to a geolocation), or a geolocation of an IP address of a device (e.g., a computer) used to execute the transaction by the user, merchant, or another purchaser.”).
Claims 5 and 15 are grouped together. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the device record, a first device location and a first record time associated with the device record; receiving a second device record from a third computing device associated with the user; and determining, based at least in part on the second device record, a second device location and a second record time associated with the second device record,wherein determining the second location of the user is based at least in part on the first device location, the first record time, the second device location, and the second record time (Ranganathan, Col. 4 ln 43-56 “Each merchant terminal contains a terminal ID and has a designated merchant address that is part of the transaction. At the time of the transaction, this terminal address is geo coded into a latitude/longitude (lat/long). The lat/long of the transaction is then compared to the last known mobile device location. The device location may be aged on an exponential scale (1/log (n)), so information that is current (recent) results in a high confidence; however location information that is hours or days old bears almost no confidence since the user may have moved. Confidence may be assigned by 1/(Log(current time−time of last location recording)+1). If the confidence is low, the system may attempt to obtain a current location of the user and/or user mobile device/cell phone.”).
Claims 7 and 17 are grouped together. Ranganathan in view of Babitch teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Babitch further teaches: further comprising: receiving, from the second computing device, a plurality of device records, each of the plurality of device records having a time stamp; and determining, as the device record, the device record of the plurality of device records having the time stamp nearest to the time associated with the online transaction (Babitch, see par. [0023] “Transaction authenticator 212 may, for example, verify the identification information received from just the buyer device, or both the buyer device and seller device. Transaction authenticator 212 may also analyze the locations and time stamps of the buyer and seller devices. For example, locations of the buyer and seller devices may be compared to known valid/invalid locations stored in the database, while the time stamps may be compared to a known clock. Transaction authenticator 212 may then either authorize a transaction between buyer 238 and seller 222, deny the transaction, or place restrictions on the transaction.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of determining network and geographic location by Babitch with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan in view of Babitch to help better improving transaction security based on location information. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 10 and 20 are grouped together. Raganathan in view of Babitch teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Furthermore, Babitch teaches: wherein: the second computing device comprises a sensor system operating at a location associated with the user; and determining the second location comprises determining, based on sensor data received from the sensor system, that the user was present at the location at the time associated with the online transaction (Babitch, see at least par. [0025] “] In another example, buyer 238 may travel with his or her cellular phone (i.e. the transaction device) from Philadelphia, Pa. to Los Angeles, Calif. while on vacation. If the buyer 238 attempts to make a purchase in Los Angeles, Calif., the purchase may still be authorized (i.e. if the time stamp information does not raise suspicion) or possibly restricted to a certain monetary amount.”) The second location is determined to bet at LA, California based on record stored in database.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of determining network and geographic location by Babitch with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan in view of Babitch to help better improving transaction security based on location information. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan (US 10,373, 160 B2) in view of Babitch et al. (US 2012/0191614 A1) in further view of Johnson, JR (US 2015/0026047 A1).
Claims 6 and 16 are grouped together. Ranganathan in view of Babitch discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 5. However, Johnson teaches: wherein the second computing device and the third computing device are separate computing devices, and wherein each of the second computing device and the third computing device comprises at least one of: a GPS device; a vehicle telematics device; a social media device; a sensor system; a smart appliance; or a WiFi access point (Johnson, JR (US 2015/0026047 A1), see at least par. [0050] “ A typical vehicle history record includes, but is not limited to, VIN, vehicle locations in GPS coordinates, date and time for the vehicle location. As described above, vehicles with a GPS receiver and a telematics device 106 can send vehicle information, such as location information, to the telematics server 102 on a periodic basis or in response to a trigger event (such as starting or stopping the vehicle's engine or crossing a geo-fence). A vehicle history record may also include `direct` vehicle measurements, such as oil temperature or engine temperature or seat belt engagement that are collected directly by the vehicle's processors (vehicle bus 108) and communicated to a central collection site such as the telematics server 102.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of a third device by Johnson with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan in view of Babitch to help better improving transaction security based on location information. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 8 and 18 are grouped together. Ranganathan in view of Babitch discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Johnson teaches wherein: the second computing device comprises a vehicle telematics device of a vehicle associated with the user; and determining the second location is based at least in part on telematics data received from the vehicle telematics device (Johnson, JR, see par. [0050] “The telematics server 102 also includes an input engine 202 and output engine 212 configured to enable communication to and from the telematics server 102. The input engine 202 may be configured to receive telematics information from the telematics device 106 associated with the vehicle 104. The input engine 202 stores the received telematics information as vehicle history records in the telematics repository 214. A typical vehicle history record includes, but is not limited to, VIN, vehicle locations in GPS coordinates, date and time for the vehicle location. As described above, vehicles with a GPS receiver and a telematics device 106 can send vehicle information, such as location information, to the telematics server 102 on a periodic basis or in response to a trigger event (such as starting or stopping the vehicle's engine or crossing a geo-fence).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of a vehicle by Johnson with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan in view of Babitch to help better improving transaction security based on location information. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 9 and 19 are grouped together. Ranganathan in view of Babitch discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 8. However, Johnson teaches: wherein the telematics data comprises the device record, the device record including: a GPS location of the vehicle at the time associated with the online transaction; and an indication that the user is at the vehicle at the time associated with the online transaction (Johnson, JR, see par. [0040] “ In the example operating environment 100, each driver 120 may be provided with or may possess a mobile computing device 122, such as a smart phone, tablet, etc. In one embodiment, the mobile computing device 120 may have location determination capability, such as GPS capability, and the mobile computing device 122 may be configured to transmit its location to the telematics server 102 at regular intervals. For example, a client side application of the telematics server 102 may be installed in the mobile computing device 122 and may be configured to collect, time stamp, and send location information associated with the mobile computing device 122 to the telematics server 102 at regular intervals.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of a vehicle by Johnson with the invention disclosed by Ranganathan in view of Babitch to help better improving transaction security based on location information. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5:00 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, Michael W. Anderson, can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights