DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 19/311,283 filed on 08/27/2025.
Claims 1-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should Claim 17 be found allowable, Claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-35 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a machine” (a system for resolving disputed transactions and customer service) category.
Regarding Claims 1-35, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A system comprising:
… configured to:
define a plurality of topics for agent responsibility, wherein the plurality of topics comprises a disputed transaction topic;
define a plurality of available actions for each topic of the plurality of topics, wherein the plurality of available actions comprise a transaction identification action, a resolution determination action, and a responsive action;
receive a user interaction from …;
provide the user interaction with the plurality of topics and the plurality of actions to a … model;
identify an action of the plurality of actions with a plurality of parameters in response to provision of the user interaction to the … model, wherein the action is related to a dispute for a financial transaction;
execute the action with the plurality of parameters;
provide a response to … in response to execution of the action; and
log data indicative of the user interaction, the identified action, the parameters, and the response.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and for managing personal behavior or interactions between people such as following rules and instructions. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “circuitry”, “a user interface channel”, and “large language model”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for resolving disputed transactions and customer service (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for resolving disputed transactions and customer service amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 10, 12, 27, and 32-35 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the user interface channel comprises …, or …” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein … is further configured to: de-identify sensitive data of the user interaction; wherein to provide the user interaction to … comprises to provide the user interaction to … in response to de-identification of the sensitive data of the user interaction” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute one or more of: (i) an … workflow; and/or an external …” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein the large language model comprises: one or more of: (i) … on transaction data; and/or …” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein … is further configured to: identify a warm handoff action in response to providing the user interaction to …; provide the user interaction and supporting data to a human agent in response to identification of the warm handoff action; and log the warm handoff action” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the transaction identification action by identifying the financial transaction based on information included in the user interaction and identified by …” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action based on policies of one or more merchants pertaining to refunds or product exchanges, wherein … with the policies of the one or more merchants pertaining to refunds or product exchanges” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein … with the set of communication guidelines” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status comprises to: obtain a tracking code associated with the purchased product; and obtain the shipping status code by execution of … with the tracking code” in Claim 27, by defining “wherein … with a plurality of fraudulent transactions” in Claim 32, by defining “wherein … is further configured to: present a … to a first user; and in response to presentation of …: receive a first topic of the plurality of topics from the first user; and receive a first action associated of the plurality of available actions for the first topic from the first user” in Claim 33, by defining “wherein … is further configured to receive, in response to the presentation of …, … specified for the first action from the user” in Claim 34, and by defining “wherein … is further configured to receive, in response to the presentation of …, a first … workflow specified for the first action from the user” in Claim 35.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-7, 10, 12, 27, and 32-35 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 2 recites additional elements – “a chat interface session”, “a mobile application”, “a website interface”, and “an email message”, Claims 3 and 6 recite additional elements – “the circuitry” and “the large language model”, Claim 4 recites additional elements – “automation” and “application programming interface (API)”, Claim 5 recites additional elements – “a fine-tuned model trained” and “a remotely hosted model”, Claim 7 recites an additional element – “the large language model”, Claims 10, 12, and 32 recite an additional element – “the large language model is trained”, Claim 27 recites an additional element – “an external application programming interface call”, Claim 33 recites additional elements – “the circuitry” and “no-code user interface”, Claim 34 recites additional elements – “the circuitry”, “no-code user interface”, and “a first application programming interface call”, and Claim 35 recites additional elements – “the circuitry”, “no-code user interface”, and “automation”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 2-7, 10, 12, 27, and 32-35 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for resolving disputed transactions and customer service amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8-9, 11, 13-26, and 28-31 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the information included in the user interaction comprises one or more of a date, time, or merchant associated with the financial transaction” in Claim 8, by defining “wherein to identify the reason for the dispute comprises: (i) to determine whether the financial transaction for the dispute is a duplicate of another financial transaction; (ii) to request information from the user that is indicative of the reason for the dispute” in Claim 9, by defining “wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to generate the response based on a set of communication guidelines” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein to generate the response comprises to provide continual feedback based on the communication guidelines” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein to provide the continual feedback comprises to provide feedback indicative of a timeline associated with resolution of the dispute” in Claim 14, by defining “wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises providing feedback indicative of a timeline to receive a refund” in Claim 15, by defining “wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline to receive a refund comprises to provide the feedback based on one or more of a refund policy of the merchant, historical refund performance of the merchant, or a shipping status of the product” in Claim 16, by defining “wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute” in Claim 17, by defining “wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute” in Claim 18, by defining “wherein to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute comprises to provide feedback that shipment was completed or that a refund was initiated by the merchant” in Claim 19, by defining “wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action, wherein to execute the resolution determination action comprises to obtain additional data to determine a resolution for the dispute” in Claim 20, by defining “wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain evidence of a purchase from a merchant in association with the financial transaction” in Claim 21, by defining “wherein to obtain the evidence of the purchase comprises to obtain data representing a receipt for the purchase” in Claim 22, by defining “wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain data identifying a product associated with the dispute” in Claim 23, by defining “wherein to obtain the data identifying the product comprises to obtain data indicative of whether the product provided to a customer matches a product purchased by the customer” in Claim 24, by defining “wherein to obtain the additional data further comprises to obtain data indicative of a condition of the product provided to the customer” in Claim 25, by defining “wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain data indicative of a shipping status of a purchased product associated with the dispute” in Claim 26, by defining “wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status further comprises to obtain data indicative of a target date for the product to reach the customer” in Claim 28, by defining “wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status further comprises to obtain data indicative of a target date for a return of the product to reach the merchant” in Claim 29, by defining “wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action, wherein to execute the resolution determination action comprises to determine a likelihood that the financial transaction is fraudulent” in Claim 30, and by defining “wherein to determine a likelihood that the financial transaction is fraudulent comprises to determine a pattern of purchases by the customer, demographic information about the customer, a typical location of the customer, a location of the merchant, one or more family members of the customer, or one or more follow up questions to the customer pertaining to possible sources of the financial transaction” in Claim 31.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 20, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0245667 A1; hereinafter "Berry") in view of Khare et al. (US Patent No. US 12,014,368 B2; hereinafter "Khare").
Regarding Claim 1, Berry teaches a system comprising: circuitry configured to: define a plurality of topics for agent responsibility, wherein the plurality of topics comprises a disputed transaction topic; define a plurality of available actions for each topic of the plurality of topics, wherein the plurality of available actions comprise a transaction identification action, a resolution determination action, and a responsive action (See “Remediation instructions are generated for the trusted validation agent using transaction data of the transaction (e.g., at operation 415). In an example, the remediation instructions may include a script generated based on the transaction data and a fraud type associated with the transaction.” in Paragraph [0039] and “The remediation instructions are transmitted to the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 420). A disposition is determined for the transaction based on input received from the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 425). In an example, the trusted validation agent may be a chatbot and the chatbot may query a large language model with the remediation instructions. A list of questions may be received to be presented to the user to be used in determining if the transaction is fraudulent. The list of questions may be transmitted to the user. Input may be received from the user in response to transmission of the list of questions. The input may be transmitted to the large language model and the disposition may be determined using output received from the large language model.” in Paragraph [0040], “Transaction handling instructions are transmitted to a transaction processing system based on the disposition (e.g., at operation 430). The transaction handling instructions cause the transaction processing system to alter processing of the transaction. In an example, alteration of the processing of the transaction may be to insert a pause or other delay in the transaction processing instructions to provide time for interaction between the user and the trusted validation agent. In an example, the disposition may indicate the transaction is fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions may cancel processing of the transaction based on user preferences in the user profile data. In an example, the disposition may indicate the transaction is fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions may pause processing of the transaction based on user preferences in the user profile data. In an example, the disposition may indicate the transaction is not fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions may continue processing of the transaction.” in Paragraph [0041]); receive a user interaction from a user interface channel; provide the user interaction with the plurality of topics and the plurality of actions to a large language model (See “The remediation instructions are transmitted to the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 420). A disposition is determined for the transaction based on input received from the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 425). In an example, the trusted validation agent may be a chatbot and the chatbot may query a large language model with the remediation instructions. A list of questions may be received to be presented to the user to be used in determining if the transaction is fraudulent. The list of questions may be transmitted to the user. Input may be received from the user in response to transmission of the list of questions. The input may be transmitted to the large language model and the disposition may be determined using output received from the large language model.” in Paragraph [0040]); identify an action of the plurality of actions with a plurality of parameters in response to provision of the user interaction to the large language model, wherein the action is related to a dispute for a financial transaction (See “Input may be received from the user in response to transmission of the list of questions. The input may be transmitted to the large language model and the disposition may be determined using output received from the large language model.” in Paragraph [0040], “In an example, the disposition may indicate the transaction is fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions may cancel processing of the transaction based on user preferences in the user profile data. In an example, the disposition may indicate the transaction is fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions may pause processing of the transaction based on user preferences in the user profile data. In an example, the disposition may indicate the transaction is not fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions may continue processing of the transaction.” in Paragraph [0041], and “The trusted validation agent platform thus offers a customer-focused solution to the problem of financial fraud, significantly enhancing security and integrity of financial transactions.” in Paragraph [0010]).
Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches execute the action with the plurality of parameters; provide a response to the user interface channel in response to execution of the action (See “Embodiments of the invention relate to systems, computer implemented methods, and computer program products for analyzing and resolving disputed data records, the systems, computer implemented methods, and computer program products configured to: receive resource transaction data for one or more resource transactions, wherein the resource transaction data comprises a resource amount and identification of a resource account for each of a sender and recipient; …; extract data from the distributed register for the resource transaction; based on the request from the sender or the recipient and the extracted data, generate an authorized dispute; analyze the resource transaction data for the resource transaction to identify a resolution for the authorized dispute, wherein the resolution comprises a reversal, partial reversal, or reimbursement of the transaction; execute the resolution and update the distributed register to reflect the execution of the resolution; and transmit a resolution response to the sender or the recipient via the user device, wherein the resolution response comprises a summary of the resolution.” in Col. 2, Lines 11-35); and log data indicative of the user interaction, the identified action, the parameters, and the response (See “The system described herein utilizes a natural language processing based system to identify and classify user submitted transaction dispute cases based on a number of different data points. For instance, dispute cases may be categorized based on a reason code category, and registered in a database of information containing transaction dispute records, user resource account information, merchant information, or the like. In some embodiments, data may also or instead stored using a distributed register architecture such as a distributed blockchain ledger. In such cases, the system may include, in some embodiments, an automated or semi-automated data extraction tool or application to continuously extract stored data from the distributed register database in order to reformat and store the data in a format according to some schema or database formatting which would allow for machine learning analysis via a machine learning engine in order to identify relevant patterns or anomalies in the transaction data. In some instances, the machine learning engine may further be used to recommend the creation of new blocks for storage on the distributed register. In some embodiments, a new block may be created in the distributed register which is added parallel to a parent transaction data block in order to indicate an association of data and identified data from the machine learning analysis. By providing permissioned access to the distributed register, information stored on the distributed register may be made viewable or accessible to a number of users, entities, merchants, or the like, which may have been a party to a particular transaction, or may be involved in the resolution of a transaction dispute or identified issue.” in Col. 7, Lines 6-36, and “In any embodiment, the data monitoring system 106 may, via the distributed register application 17, participate in validating proposed data records through a consensus algorithm, along with the nodes of the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250. For example, a new parameter which coincides with a newly created transaction, transaction dispute, merchant response, recommended resolution, action steps taken for a given dispute resolution, user interaction, identified user relationship, or the like, may be proposed to be added to the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250.” in Col. 19, Lines 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include execute the action with the plurality of parameters; provide a response to the user interface channel in response to execution of the action; and log data indicative of the user interaction, the identified action, the parameters, and the response, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 2, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry also teaches wherein the user interface channel comprises a chat interface session, a mobile application, a website interface, or an email message (See “At operation 320, a communication session is initiated between the trusted validation agent and the user. In an example, the communication session may be initiated via text message, email, telephone, chat, etc.” in Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: de-identify sensitive data of the user interaction; wherein to provide the user interaction to the large language model comprises to provide the user interaction to the large language model in response to de-identification of the sensitive data of the user interaction (See “In some embodiments, the machine learning engine may include an adversarial neural network that uses a process of encoding and decoding in order to adversarial train one or more machine learning models to identify relevant patterns in received data received from one or more channels of communication.” in Col. 10, Lines 5-10, and “In other embodiments, the third party systems 160 may be provided permissioned access to data of the data monitoring system 106 via a password protected web interface, password protected link, permissioned access to portions of the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250, or a link to certain encrypted information on the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250 which can be decrypted or contextualized at a later time in order to provide or retrieve information related to one or more transactions or ongoing transaction disputes.” in Col. 10, Lines 57-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include de-identify sensitive data of the user interaction; wherein to provide the user interaction to the large language model comprises to provide the user interaction to the large language model in response to de-identification of the sensitive data of the user interaction, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 4, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute one or more of: (i) an automation workflow; and/or an external application programming interface (API) (See “In embodiments in which the new data records are added automatically, the interjector 330 may cause the data monitoring system 106 to automatically retrieve resource data and submit the necessary information to the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250 in the form of a proposed data record.” in Col. 21, Lines 2-7, “If the resource amount of the transaction dispute claim is under a given numerical threshold of resources, the system may process a write-off, update the resolution block, and send an automated response to the user (e.g., via one or more communication channels via a mobile application or web portal, or via email, text, phone call, letter, or the like) who either submitted the claim or is a party to a system-identified transaction dispute as shown in block 610.” in Col. 23, Lines 34-42, and “In such embodiments, the distributed register application 17 may include an entity-provided application or other third party application which interfaces with the user to allow the user to intelligently select and communicate with the node N system 301. For instance, in some embodiments, the distributed register application 17 may include a web browser, web portal, API interface, or the like which allows the user to access a web server to upload data, send or receive data, participate in validation of data records, manage distributed register interjectors, or the like.” in Col. 16, Lines 4-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute one or more of: (i) an automation workflow; and/or an external application programming interface (API), as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 5, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry also teaches wherein the large language model comprises: one or more of: (i) a fine-tuned model trained on transaction data; and/or a remotely hosted model (See “The machine learning algorithm 235 produces a trigger prediction model 240 based upon the features and feedback 270 associated with those features. For example, the features associated with past triggering transactions for past clients are used as a set of training data. As noted above, the trigger prediction model 240 may be for the entire system (e.g., built of training data accumulated throughout the entire system, regardless of the user for which a resource is being selected), or may be built specific for each user, user group, project type, file type, etc.” in Paragraph [0026], “It should be noted that the trigger prediction model 240 may be periodically updated via additional training and/or user feedback 270.” in Paragraph [0028], and “In an example, a triggering transaction prediction model may be trained by extracting features from historical client data and historical transaction data that includes fraudulent transactions.” in Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 as described above. Berry also teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: identify a warm handoff action in response to providing the user interaction to the large language model; provide the user interaction and supporting data to a human agent in response to identification of the warm handoff action (See “The agent selector 160 may enable the user to assign various types of validation agents/roles using templates that define granular data release for the various types/roles, when a transaction triggers the validation agent, etc. In an example, the user may be presented with an option to select an automatic agent that uses a chatbot and a large language model (LLM) to act as a validation agent that is able to make a final deposition decision for a transaction based on transmitting clarifying queries to the user and processing the received responses using the available transaction data and the LLM. The chatbot may generate a template for an agent to use in discussing the transaction with the user. In an example, the chatbot may be the initial point of contact for the trusted validation agent session and the session may be transferred to a human validation agent (e.g., when additional information is needed, when the basic information has been collected, etc.).” in Paragraph [0017]).
Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches log the warm handoff action (See “The system described herein utilizes a natural language processing based system to identify and classify user submitted transaction dispute cases based on a number of different data points. For instance, dispute cases may be categorized based on a reason code category, and registered in a database of information containing transaction dispute records, user resource account information, merchant information, or the like. In some embodiments, data may also or instead stored using a distributed register architecture such as a distributed blockchain ledger. In such cases, the system may include, in some embodiments, an automated or semi-automated data extraction tool or application to continuously extract stored data from the distributed register database in order to reformat and store the data in a format according to some schema or database formatting which would allow for machine learning analysis via a machine learning engine in order to identify relevant patterns or anomalies in the transaction data. In some instances, the machine learning engine may further be used to recommend the creation of new blocks for storage on the distributed register. In some embodiments, a new block may be created in the distributed register which is added parallel to a parent transaction data block in order to indicate an association of data and identified data from the machine learning analysis. By providing permissioned access to the distributed register, information stored on the distributed register may be made viewable or accessible to a number of users, entities, merchants, or the like, which may have been a party to a particular transaction, or may be involved in the resolution of a transaction dispute or identified issue.” in Col. 7, Lines 6-36, and “In any embodiment, the data monitoring system 106 may, via the distributed register application 17, participate in validating proposed data records through a consensus algorithm, along with the nodes of the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250. For example, a new parameter which coincides with a newly created transaction, transaction dispute, merchant response, recommended resolution, action steps taken for a given dispute resolution, user interaction, identified user relationship, or the like, may be proposed to be added to the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250.” in Col. 19, Lines 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include execute the action with the plurality of parameters; provide a response to the user interface channel in response to execution of the action; and log data indicative of the user interaction, the identified action, the parameters, and the response, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 7, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry also teaches wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the transaction identification action by identifying the financial transaction based on information included in the user interaction and identified by the large language model (See “The remediation instructions are transmitted to the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 420). A disposition is determined for the transaction based on input received from the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 425). In an example, the trusted validation agent may be a chatbot and the chatbot may query a large language model with the remediation instructions. A list of questions may be received to be presented to the user to be used in determining if the transaction is fraudulent. The list of questions may be transmitted to the user. Input may be received from the user in response to transmission of the list of questions. The input may be transmitted to the large language model and the disposition may be determined using output received from the large language model.” in Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 8, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 7 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein the information included in the user interaction comprises one or more of a date, time, or merchant associated with the financial transaction (See “Parameters may include, but are not limited to, tracking each particular resource account's amount, transaction's amount, transaction details (e.g., time, data, purpose, location, merchant, goods, services, or the like), application's compatibilities, ownership information, security information, resource transaction information, user interaction information, managing entity information, or the like.” in Col. 19, Lines 2-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein the information included in the user interaction comprises one or more of a date, time, or merchant associated with the financial transaction, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 10, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action based on policies of one or more merchants pertaining to refunds or product exchanges, wherein the large language model is trained with the policies of the one or more merchants pertaining to refunds or product exchanges (See “Furthermore, decisioning may be informed by one or more entity policies, third party policies, jurisdictional policies, reporting requirements, or the like, as indicated by the information flow from policy portal 603 to machine learning engine 146. If the system determines, either by automated machine learning analysis of existing data on the individual customer disputes distributed register repository 250, or by analysis of user submitted information, that a resolution block should be created, the system generates a resolution block for submission to the distributed register as noted in the process described in FIG. 5. As shown in decision diamond 609, the process proceeds to a threshold-based decisioning step in order to route claims into one of two resolution pathways. If the resource amount of the transaction dispute claim is under a given numerical threshold of resources, the system may process a write-off, update the resolution block, and send an automated response to the user (e.g., via one or more communication channels via a mobile application or web portal, or via email, text, phone call, letter, or the like) who either submitted the claim or is a party to a system-identified transaction dispute as shown in block 610. It is understood that the threshold may be programmed to be any amount of resources, and may be based on user preference, category of claim, entity policy, governing body, or the like. As shown following block 610, the process may be terminated once the block has been updated to reflect the automated resolution of claims under the threshold amount. In some embodiments, the user may be able to view the automated response status in real time via a graphical user interface of the user device, such as via an entity provided mobile application, or the like. In some embodiments, the counterparty to the disputed transaction, such as another user, a merchant, or the like, may also receive a notification in the same or similar manner, or may be provided access to the distributed register or an application for extracting information from the distributed register which will reflect the updated resolution block containing the automated outcome of the disputed transaction and resolution.” in Col. 23, Lines 21-58, “In some embodiments, the return block 706 may contain information related to a return process. For instance, a user may contact the entity where the user's resource account is located, and may dispute a transaction, such as the new transaction of block 703. A claim is created for the dispute, and the entity may issues a provisional resource amount for the disputed transaction, which is stored in the return block 706. Subsequent review of the claim details may include determining if the transaction of the claim meets a certain threshold by referencing the transaction data in block 703, which would be indicated in the return block 706 by nature of the previous hash value. The system may then make various determinations as described in FIGS. 6a and 6b in order to resolve the dispute (e.g., determine if additional information is needed, determine a recommended action based on historical data analysis, automate reporting of outcome to user, third party, or the like).” in Col. 25, Lines 31-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action based on policies of one or more merchants pertaining to refunds or product exchanges, wherein the large language model is trained with the policies of the one or more merchants pertaining to refunds or product exchanges, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 11, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to generate the response based on a set of communication guidelines (See “The system is further configured to intelligently determine data forwarding decisions based on one or more configurable data guidelines as determined by one or more entities or third party systems, and provide access to verified data to these entities and systems to improve the end user experience in automating resolutions for transaction disputes regarding resource transaction information stored on the distributed register.” in Col. 1, Lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to generate the response based on a set of communication guidelines, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 12, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein the large language model is trained with the set of communication guidelines (See “In some embodiments, the machine learning engine 146 is used to analyze received data in order to extrapolate these patterns or data correlations and identify and recommend further action for dispute resolution, reporting, due diligence, information gathering, or the like. In some embodiments, the machine learning engine 146 may include supervised learning techniques, unsupervised learning techniques, or a combination of multiple machine learning models that combine supervised and unsupervised learning techniques. In some embodiments, the machine learning engine may include an adversarial neural network that uses a process of encoding and decoding in order to adversarial train one or more machine learning models to identify relevant patterns in received data received from one or more channels of communication.” in Col. 9, Lines 63 – Col. 10, Lines 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein the large language model is trained with the set of communication guidelines, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 13, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein to generate the response comprises to provide continual feedback based on the communication guidelines (See “The system is further configured to intelligently determine data forwarding decisions based on one or more configurable data guidelines as determined by one or more entities or third party systems, and provide access to verified data to these entities and systems to improve the end user experience in automating resolutions for transaction disputes regarding resource transaction information stored on the distributed register.” in Col. 1, Lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein to generate the response comprises to provide continual feedback based on the communication guidelines, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 20, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action, wherein to execute the resolution determination action comprises to obtain additional data to determine a resolution for the dispute (See “In some embodiments, the system is further configured to identify that additional information is required based on the request from the sender or the recipient; and automatically transmit a request to the sender or recipient for the additional information.” in Col. 2, Lines 54-58 and “The system may then make various determinations as described in FIGS. 6a and 6b in order to resolve the dispute (e.g., determine if additional information is needed, …, or the like).” in Col. 25, Lines 42-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action, wherein to execute the resolution determination action comprises to obtain additional data to determine a resolution for the dispute, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 33, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry also teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: present a no-code user interface to a first user; and in response to presentation of the no-code user interface: receive a first topic of the plurality of topics from the first user; and receive a first action associated of the plurality of available actions for the first topic from the first user (See “The remediation instructions are transmitted to the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 420). A disposition is determined for the transaction based on input received from the trusted validation agent (e.g., at operation 425). In an example, the trusted validation agent may be a chatbot and the chatbot may query a large language model with the remediation instructions. A list of questions may be received to be presented to the user to be used in determining if the transaction is fraudulent. The list of questions may be transmitted to the user. Input may be received from the user in response to transmission of the list of questions. The input may be transmitted to the large language model and the disposition may be determined using output received from the large language model.” in Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 35, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 33 as described above. Berry does not explicitly teach; however, Khare teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive, in response to the presentation of the no-code user interface, a first automation workflow specified for the first action from the user (See “If the resource amount of the transaction dispute claim is under a given numerical threshold of resources, the system may process a write-off, update the resolution block, and send an automated response to the user (e.g., via one or more communication channels via a mobile application or web portal, or via email, text, phone call, letter, or the like) who either submitted the claim or is a party to a system-identified transaction dispute as shown in block 610.” in Col. 23, Lines 34-42 and “In such embodiments, the distributed register application 17 may include an entity-provided application or other third party application which interfaces with the user to allow the user to intelligently select and communicate with the node N system 301. For instance, in some embodiments, the distributed register application 17 may include a web browser, web portal, API interface, or the like which allows the user to access a web server to upload data, send or receive data, participate in validation of data records, manage distributed register interjectors, or the like.” in Col. 16, Lines 4-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry to include wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive, in response to the presentation of the no-code user interface, a first automation workflow specified for the first action from the user, as taught by Khare, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Claims 9, 14, 17-18, 21-24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry in view of Khare and Kubler et al. (US PG Pub. No. US 2021/0398142 A1; hereinafter "Kubler").
Regarding Claim 9, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to identify the reason for the dispute comprises: (i) to determine whether the financial transaction for the dispute is a duplicate of another financial transaction; (ii) to request information from the user that is indicative of the reason for the dispute (See Fig. 6-C, “In some embodiments, user interface 60-C may include a number of selectable dispute reasons, as shown in exemplary FIG. 6-C.” in Paragraph [0089], and “In some embodiments, a dispute request interface may include input areas where a user may input information. For example, a dispute request interface may include input areas for information related to a transaction and/or dispute, such as a dispute reason, ... In some embodiments, a dispute request interface may include interactive elements with which a user may interact to input information, such as a text field, …, a drop-down menu (e.g., to input a dispute reason), …, or any other interactive element to facilitate the input of information.” in Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to identify the reason for the dispute comprises: (i) to determine whether the financial transaction for the dispute is a duplicate of another financial transaction; (ii) to request information from the user that is indicative of the reason for the dispute, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 14, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 13 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to provide the continual feedback comprises to provide feedback indicative of a timeline associated with resolution of the dispute (See “At step 510, process 500 may display a dispute status (e.g., at display 170). In some embodiments, a dispute status may be determined at a device 100 and transmitted to a user device 150. For example, a dispute status of “submitted,” “reviewing dispute,” “pending,” “processed,” “waiting for transaction posting,” or “awaiting customer response,” may be displayed. In some embodiments, a progress bar, timeline, graph, or other visual indicator showing progress of a dispute may be displayed.” in Paragraph [0081] and “At step 512, process 500 may determine a dispute status update. In some embodiments, a device 100 and/or device 130 may determine a dispute status update. In some embodiments, process 500 may determine a dispute status update by parsing a communication received from a device (e.g., device 100). Such a communication may contain updated dispute data, updated transaction data, or any other data indicating a new status of a dispute. For example, in response to detecting a transaction status data extract (e.g., according to step 422), a device 100 may transmit the data extract and/or related information (e.g., updated dispute data) to a user device 150.” in Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to provide the continual feedback comprises to provide feedback indicative of a timeline associated with resolution of the dispute, as taught by Kubler, in order to provide helpful information to the person who filed the dispute.
Regarding Claim 17, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 13-14 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute (See “At step 510, process 500 may display a dispute status (e.g., at display 170). In some embodiments, a dispute status may be determined at a device 100 and transmitted to a user device 150. For example, a dispute status of “submitted,” “reviewing dispute,” “pending,” “processed,” “waiting for transaction posting,” or “awaiting customer response,” may be displayed. In some embodiments, a progress bar, timeline, graph, or other visual indicator showing progress of a dispute may be displayed.” in Paragraph [0081] and “At step 512, process 500 may determine a dispute status update. In some embodiments, a device 100 and/or device 130 may determine a dispute status update. In some embodiments, process 500 may determine a dispute status update by parsing a communication received from a device (e.g., device 100). Such a communication may contain updated dispute data, updated transaction data, or any other data indicating a new status of a dispute. For example, in response to detecting a transaction status data extract (e.g., according to step 422), a device 100 may transmit the data extract and/or related information (e.g., updated dispute data) to a user device 150.” in Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute, as taught by Kubler, in order to provide helpful information to the person who filed the dispute.
Regarding Claim 18, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 13-14 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute (See “At step 510, process 500 may display a dispute status (e.g., at display 170). In some embodiments, a dispute status may be determined at a device 100 and transmitted to a user device 150. For example, a dispute status of “submitted,” “reviewing dispute,” “pending,” “processed,” “waiting for transaction posting,” or “awaiting customer response,” may be displayed. In some embodiments, a progress bar, timeline, graph, or other visual indicator showing progress of a dispute may be displayed.” in Paragraph [0081] and “At step 512, process 500 may determine a dispute status update. In some embodiments, a device 100 and/or device 130 may determine a dispute status update. In some embodiments, process 500 may determine a dispute status update by parsing a communication received from a device (e.g., device 100). Such a communication may contain updated dispute data, updated transaction data, or any other data indicating a new status of a dispute. For example, in response to detecting a transaction status data extract (e.g., according to step 422), a device 100 may transmit the data extract and/or related information (e.g., updated dispute data) to a user device 150.” in Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute, as taught by Kubler, in order to provide helpful information to the person who filed the dispute.
Regarding Claim 21, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 20 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain evidence of a purchase from a merchant in association with the financial transaction (See Figs. 6-C to 6-G, “In accordance with further embodiments, the input is received at the user interface and comprises at least one of: a dispute reason, a correct transaction amount, an image of a receipt, or an item identifier.” in Paragraph [0020], and “In some embodiments, a dispute request interface may include input areas where a user may input information. For example, a dispute request interface may include input areas for information related to a transaction and/or dispute, such as a dispute reason, a transaction amount (e.g., a correct transaction amount, an expected transaction amount, an actual transaction amount, etc.), an image (e.g., of a receipt, an order summary, an order confirmation, or any other information related to a transaction), an item identifier (e.g., a UPC code, an EAN code, a QR code, a Code 39 code, or any other identifier that uniquely identifies a product), and/or an audio recording. In some embodiments, a dispute request interface may include interactive elements with which a user may interact to input information, such as a text field, a button, a slide bar (e.g., to input an amount of a transaction), a drop-down menu (e.g., to input a dispute reason), a graph, a timeline, or any other interactive element to facilitate the input of information. In some embodiments, interaction with an interactive element may activate a sensor of a device (e.g., a camera of user device 150 may be activated, such as to enable the device to capture an image of a receipt).” in Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain evidence of a purchase from a merchant in association with the financial transaction, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 22, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, and 21 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to obtain the evidence of the purchase comprises to obtain data representing a receipt for the purchase (See Fig. 6-E, “In accordance with further embodiments, the input is received at the user interface and comprises at least one of: …, an image of a receipt, or ...” in Paragraph [0020], and “In some embodiments, a dispute request interface may include input areas where a user may input information. For example, a dispute request interface may include input areas for information related to a transaction and/or dispute, such as …, an image (e.g., of a receipt, an order summary, an order confirmation, or any other information related to a transaction), ...” in Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to obtain the evidence of the purchase comprises to obtain data representing a receipt for the purchase, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 23, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 20 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain data identifying a product associated with the dispute (See Fig. 6-F and “In some embodiments, user interface 60-F may include a purchase description area 600-F, which may accept an input for describing a purchased product or products. For example, a user may input text, an image, a product identifier, and/or any other information identifying a product into purchase description area 600-F.” in Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain data identifying a product associated with the dispute, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 24, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20 and 23 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to obtain the data identifying the product comprises to obtain data indicative of whether the product provided to a customer matches a product purchased by the customer (See “At step 506, process 500 may receive dispute request input. As discussed above, dispute request input may include information related to a transaction and/or dispute, such as a dispute reason, a transaction amount (e.g., a correct transaction amount, an expected transaction amount, an actual transaction amount, etc.), an image (e.g., of a receipt, an order summary, an order confirmation, or any other information related to a transaction), an item identifier (e.g., a UPC code, an EAN code, a QR code, a Code 39 code, or any other identifier that uniquely identifies a product), and/or an audio recording. In some embodiments, dispute request input may include an indicator that a user confirms information related to a transaction and/or dispute is accurate (e.g., that a date and amount of a transaction are accurate).” in Paragraph [0079] and “In some embodiments, user interface 60-F may include a purchase description area 600-F, which may accept an input for describing a purchased product or products. For example, a user may input text, an image, a product identifier, and/or any other information identifying a product into purchase description area 600-F.” in Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to obtain the data identifying the product comprises to obtain data indicative of whether the product provided to a customer matches a product purchased by the customer, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 34, Berry in view of Khare teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 33 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive, in response to the presentation of the no-code user interface, a first application programming interface call specified for the first action from the user (See “For example, Falcon API 108 may connect to an API Hub Platform API 110 to send or receive API information in a Representational State Transfer (REST) API format. API Hub Platform API 110 may perform REST translations between different APIs, such as between Falcon API 108 and an API on user device 150. A REST translation may involve altering (e.g., reformatting, removing portions of data to be sent, changing text according to defined associations) an API call, changing a data profile of API data, and/or otherwise configuring communications between APIs (which may be implemented at different API nodes).” in Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive, in response to the presentation of the no-code user interface, a first application programming interface call specified for the first action from the user, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Claims 15-16, 19, 25-26, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda; Rolando (US PG Pub. No. US 2025/0124419 A1; hereinafter "Penaranda").
Regarding Claim 15, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 13-14 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises providing feedback indicative of a timeline to receive a refund (See “Return/Refund Policy Information data may: provide clarity on expected procedures for returns or refund requests; help judge if a return/refund dispute adheres to agreed terms.” in Paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline comprises providing feedback indicative of a timeline to receive a refund, as taught by Penaranda, in order to provide helpful information to the person who filed the dispute.
Regarding Claim 16, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 13-15 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline to receive a refund comprises to provide the feedback based on one or more of a refund policy of the merchant, historical refund performance of the merchant, or a shipping status of the product (See “Return/Refund Policy Information data may: provide clarity on expected procedures for returns or refund requests; help judge if a return/refund dispute adheres to agreed terms.” in Paragraph [0050] and “Tracking Number data may: validates whether an item was shipped, be used to determine the status of the shipment (e.g., in transit, delivered, returned), help establish a timeline of events, especially useful in cases where a buyer claims they never received an item.” in Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to provide feedback indicative of a timeline to receive a refund comprises to provide the feedback based on one or more of a refund policy of the merchant, historical refund performance of the merchant, or a shipping status of the product, as taught by Penaranda, in order to provide helpful information to the person who filed the dispute.
Regarding Claim 19, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, 13-14, and 18 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute comprises to provide feedback that shipment was completed or that a refund was initiated by the merchant (See “Return/Refund Policy Information data may: provide clarity on expected procedures for returns or refund requests; help judge if a return/refund dispute adheres to agreed terms.” in Paragraph [0050] and “Tracking Number data may: validates whether an item was shipped, be used to determine the status of the shipment (e.g., in transit, delivered, returned), help establish a timeline of events, especially useful in cases where a buyer claims they never received an item.” in Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to provide feedback over multiple stages of resolution of the dispute comprises to provide feedback that shipment was completed or that a refund was initiated by the merchant, as taught by Penaranda, in order to provide helpful information to the person who filed the dispute.
Regarding Claim 25, Berry in view of Khare and Kubler teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, and 23-24 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to obtain the additional data further comprises to obtain data indicative of a condition of the product provided to the customer (See “This interface 14 may be provided to users (buyers or sellers) that need to submit documents to support a dispute claim related to the transaction 6. For example, the buyer may need to provide photos/videos of the defective or damaged goods received as shown in FIG. 2.” in Paragraph [0031] and “Photos of Packaged Item may: establish evidence of condition at time of shipping for comparison against damage claims.” in Paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to obtain the additional data further comprises to obtain data indicative of a condition of the product provided to the customer, as taught by Penaranda, in order to provide buyers with receiving compensation or replacement without risk of losing funds already committed to sellers in the situations of unsatisfactory deliveries (See Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 26, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, and 23-25 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain data indicative of a shipping status of a purchased product associated with the dispute (See “Tracking Number data may: validates whether an item was shipped, be used to determine the status of the shipment (e.g., in transit, delivered, returned), help establish a timeline of events, especially useful in cases where a buyer claims they never received an item.” in Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to obtain the additional data comprises to obtain data indicative of a shipping status of a purchased product associated with the dispute, as taught by Penaranda, in order to verify if the purchased product was delivered to the buyer.
Regarding Claim 28, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, and 23-26 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status further comprises to obtain data indicative of a target date for the product to reach the customer (See “Tracking Number data may: validates whether an item was shipped, be used to determine the status of the shipment (e.g., in transit, delivered, returned), help establish a timeline of events, especially useful in cases where a buyer claims they never received an item.” in Paragraph [0048] and “Shipping Provider and Service Level data may: determine providers known for better reliability compared to others; know which provider and service level (e.g., standard, express, overnight) was used can give context to the dispute, indicate the expected delivery timeline, helping judge if a delay claim is reasonable.” in Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status further comprises to obtain data indicative of a target date for the product to reach the customer, as taught by Penaranda, in order to help judging if a delay claim is reasonable (See Paragraph [0049] of Penaranda).
Regarding Claim 29, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, and 23-26 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status further comprises to obtain data indicative of a target date for a return of the product to reach the merchant (See “Shipping Provider and Service Level data may: determine providers known for better reliability compared to others; know which provider and service level (e.g., standard, express, overnight) was used can give context to the dispute, indicate the expected delivery timeline, helping judge if a delay claim is reasonable.” in Paragraph [0049] and “Return/Refund Policy Information data may: provide clarity on expected procedures for returns or refund requests; help judge if a return/refund dispute adheres to agreed terms.” in Paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status further comprises to obtain data indicative of a target date for a return of the product to reach the merchant, as taught by Penaranda, in order to help judging if a delay claim is reasonable (See Paragraph [0049] of Penaranda).
Regarding Claim 30, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, 23-26, and 29 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action, wherein to execute the resolution determination action comprises to determine a likelihood that the financial transaction is fraudulent (See “Process 400 may generate deviation data, which may describe any aspect of a detected deviation (e.g., a degree of deviation with respect to a threshold, which may be a threshold of a model). For example, deviation data may include a transaction status indicator, which may identify a transaction as anomalous, unauthorized, or erroneous, and may include a likelihood of accuracy of the identification, which may be based on a degree of deviation.” in Paragraph [0065] and “At step 412, process 400 may determine a dispute status. In some embodiments, a dispute status may be one of several dispute statuses, such as disputed, undisputed, incomplete, or unknown. In some embodiments, a dispute status may comprise a likelihood of the accuracy of a transaction status identification (e.g., 80% likelihood that a transaction is correctly identified as erroneous), which may be based on transaction data, account data, input data (which may have been translated to a particular API format), and/or deviation data. For example, if deviation data indicates that a deviation from a model is small and input data includes a small amount of data (e.g., only an indicator that a transaction is disputed), the dispute status may indicate that the transaction is disputed, but may also indicate that the likelihood of transaction as being accurately identified as unauthorized is small. In some embodiments, a likelihood of accuracy of a transaction status identification may be correlated with a user history. For example, if a user has submitted a threshold number of incorrect disputes (e.g., disputes misidentifying a transaction), a likelihood of accuracy of a transaction identified as unauthorized may be decreased.” in Paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to execute the action with the plurality of parameters comprises to execute the resolution determination action, wherein to execute the resolution determination action comprises to determine a likelihood that the financial transaction is fraudulent, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 31, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, 23-26, and 29-30 as described above. Berry in view of Khare does not explicitly teach; however, Kubler teaches wherein to determine a likelihood that the financial transaction is fraudulent comprises to determine a pattern of purchases by the customer, demographic information about the customer, a typical location of the customer, a location of the merchant, one or more family members of the customer, or one or more follow up questions to the customer pertaining to possible sources of the financial transaction (See “At step 412, process 400 may determine a dispute status. In some embodiments, a dispute status may be one of several dispute statuses, such as disputed, undisputed, incomplete, or unknown. In some embodiments, a dispute status may comprise a likelihood of the accuracy of a transaction status identification (e.g., 80% likelihood that a transaction is correctly identified as erroneous), which may be based on transaction data, account data, input data (which may have been translated to a particular API format), and/or deviation data. For example, if deviation data indicates that a deviation from a model is small and input data includes a small amount of data (e.g., only an indicator that a transaction is disputed), the dispute status may indicate that the transaction is disputed, but may also indicate that the likelihood of transaction as being accurately identified as unauthorized is small. In some embodiments, a likelihood of accuracy of a transaction status identification may be correlated with a user history. For example, if a user has submitted a threshold number of incorrect disputes (e.g., disputes misidentifying a transaction), a likelihood of accuracy of a transaction identified as unauthorized may be decreased.” in Paragraph [0068] and Figs. 6-C to 6-G for one or more follow up questions to the customer pertaining to possible sources of the financial transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare to include wherein to determine a likelihood that the financial transaction is fraudulent comprises to determine a pattern of purchases by the customer, demographic information about the customer, a typical location of the customer, a location of the merchant, one or more family members of the customer, or one or more follow up questions to the customer pertaining to possible sources of the financial transaction, as taught by Kubler, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Regarding Claim 32, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, 23-26, and 29-30 as described above. Berry also teaches wherein the large language model is trained with a plurality of fraudulent transactions (See “The trigger learning engine 150 uses training data 155 that includes historical customer account activity, fraud history, etc. to extract features to build a recommendation model for recommended trusted validation agent triggers that may be recommended to the user based on fraud experiences and trigger preferences of other customers with features similar to the user.” in Paragraph [0014], “ In an example, the user may be presented with an option to select an automatic agent that uses a chatbot and a large language model (LLM) to act as a validation agent that is able to make a final deposition decision for a transaction based on transmitting clarifying queries to the user and processing the received responses using the available transaction data and the LLM.” in Paragraph [0017], and “In an example, a triggering transaction prediction model may be trained by extracting features from historical client data and historical transaction data that includes fraudulent transactions.” in Paragraph [0037]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, Penaranda, and Sagiv et al. (US PG Pub. No. US 2024/0296199 A1; hereinafter "Sagiv").
Regarding Claim 27, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 20, and 23-26 as described above. Berry in view of Khare and Kubler does not explicitly teach; however, Penaranda teaches wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status comprises to: obtain a tracking code associated with the purchased product; and obtain the shipping status code by execution of an external … with the tracking code (See “Tracking Number data may: validates whether an item was shipped, be used to determine the status of the shipment (e.g., in transit, delivered, returned), help establish a timeline of events, especially useful in cases where a buyer claims they never received an item.” in Paragraph [0048] and “For example, the training data may incorporate transaction details like amounts and timestamps, user profiles with information such as transaction history and verification status, dispute information including evidence provided by the parties, …, external data sources, …, and more.” in Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare and Kubler to include wherein to obtain the data indicative of the shipping status comprises to: obtain a tracking code associated with the purchased product; and obtain the shipping status code by execution of an external … with the tracking code, as taught by Penaranda, in order to verify if the purchased product was delivered to the buyer (See Paragraph [0049] of Penaranda).
As described above, Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda does not explicitly teach “application programming interface call”. However, Sagiv teaches application programming interface call (See “In embodiments, a website building system may support the request using an API call to the compliance system 202.” in Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berry in view of Khare, Kubler, and Penaranda to include application programming interface call, as taught by Sagiv, in order to make the process for analyzing and resolving disputed transactions more efficient and effective.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MARTINEZ-GUARNEROS et al. (US 2021/0390545 A1) teaches systems and methods for processing transaction disputes and processing transactions associated with compromised accounts.
Barry et al. (US 2021/0383391 A1) teaches systems and methods for fraud dispute of pending transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights