DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action / First Action On Merits.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The three information disclosure statements (IDS) filed have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of activating a rule for transactions without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations.
Claim 11, in pertinent part, recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, an indication of an attempted electronic transaction involving a merchant and a payment card of a user;
identifying… based on electronic transaction histories of a group of users indicating that the group of users infrequently transacts with the merchant, that the attempted electronic transaction involving the merchant is an out-of-pattern transaction;
generating… a proposed card control rule for the user responsive to identifying that the attempted electronic transaction involving the merchant is an out-of- pattern transaction;
transmitting… the proposed card control rule to a card control dashboard; and
activating… in response to receiving a user selection from the card control dashboard, the proposed card control rule, wherein activating the proposed card control rule restricts the attempted electronic transaction and restricts subsequent electronic transactions that violate the activated card control rule.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a computing system, emphasized above in bold per claim 11 which is selected for analysis. The following additional elements are recited in claims 11, and 16 accordingly: a memory storing instructions and a processing unit executing the instructions stored in the memory, non-transitory computer-readable media with computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, and one or more processors of a computing system. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “a card control dashboard” is not part of the claimed computer system which carries out the claimed scope. As a result, the card control dashboard is not deemed as an additional element. However, even if said control dashboard is deemed as an additional element, it is not to be addressed as positively carrying out any limitation because the computer system receives data from said control dashboard. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, identify or analyze data related to the received data, generate data, send the data, and receiving data in order to output a result such as activating a transaction rule. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. The additional elements are used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea; automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea is also as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-3 include additional elements such as receiving GPS coordinates to track a current location of ta user device of the user responsive to activating a geo-enabled feature and sending an alert to a use based on the GPS determination and transaction analysis. The dependent claims fail to recite that the claimed user device is the same device that is initiating the transaction as claimed in claim 1. However, if claims 2-3 are included in claim 1 and the user device is clarified as the device initiating the transaction, the claims could be deemed as amounting to a practical application. Consideration of such an amendment would be made once officially filed. The remainder of the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The remainder of the dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims, other than claims 2-3 and related dependent claims, further describe the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,516,035 to Moritz et al. (Moritz), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0293363 to Plymouth et al. (Plymouth).
Per claims 1, 11 and 16, Moritz teaches all of the following claim limitations:
A computing system, comprising [Abstract]:
a memory storing instructions and a processing unit executing the instructions stored in the memory that, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform operations comprising [Figure 2]:
receiving an indication for an attempted electronic transaction involving a merchant and a payment card of a user (user tries to carry out a transaction with a seller/merchant using a payment method/account – “The contact may include a request for the user to engage in an activity such as view an account, purchase insurance, file a claim, transfer funds, and the like. The contact with the user may establish a current session with the user. Engaging operation 510 may record, observe, and/or monitor interactions during and after the contact. Usage patterns may be detected during engaging operation 510”) [Col. 23, Ln. 23-40];
identifying, based on electronic transaction histories of a group of users indicating that the group of users infrequently transact with the merchant, that the attempted electronic transaction involving the merchant is an out-of-pattern transaction (information of other users similar to the user based on demographics is collected, analyzed, and used to generate a profile including rules / usage allocation for the user attempting to conduct a transaction and “decide whether user is allowed to engage in the activity…”) [Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9];
generating a proposed card control rule for the user responsive to identifying that the attempted electronic transaction involving the merchant is an out-of-pattern transaction (based on the analysis of other user data, a rule or determination is made on whether to allow the user to engage in the action/transaction) [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13];
Moritz does not explicitly disclose:
Although Moritz teaches sending a notification to a user device regarding a transaction and rule for said transaction and receiving a response from the user, as indicated above and in Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15, Moritz does not explicitly disclose transmitting the proposed card control rule to a card control dashboard.
Plymouth teaches transmitting the proposed card control rule to a card control dashboard (user receives alert regarding a transaction rule and the user is able to respond to the alert accordingly using their mobile device, transaction rules are based on demographic, historical data, social networking, updated/learning models) [Paragraphs 0011-0012, 0026-0028, 0031, 0084-0085, 0127, 0150, and 1035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly teach notifying the user by sending a proposed card control rule to the user’s device/interface/application in motivation of allowing the user to easily review the issue/alert and determine how to appropriately respond to the alert. The use of a control dashboard is not part of the claimed scope and has no patentable weight because the claimed scope is directed to a computing system not including the user device that would have said dashboard. However, the limitation is rejected based on the above rational to expedite prosecution. For emphasis, the sending of the rule has patentable weight but to where the rule is sent can be regarded as simply another entity, meaning sending the alert by the claimed system to another entity. The specifics of the another entity are not part of the claimed scope so that is the portion that has no function or weight.
Although Moritz teaches receiving a user response regarding the transaction alert, as indicated above, Moritz does not explicitly disclose activating, in response to receiving a user selection from the card control dashboard, the proposed card control rule, wherein activating the proposed card control rule restricts subsequent electronic transactions that violate the activated card control rule.
Plymouth teaches activating, in response to receiving a user selection from the card control dashboard, the proposed card control rule, wherein activating the proposed card control rule restricts subsequent electronic transactions that violate the activated card control rule [Paragraphs 0011-0012, 0026-0028, 0031, 0084-0085, 0127, 0150, and 1035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches receiving user selection of whether to advance a transaction responsive to a received transaction alert on their device, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly teach receiving use selection from their device, which has an interface/application, and the selection including a activation of the rule and thus updating the rules as a whole to include the activation rule received by the user in motivation of enhancing user experience by updating the rules related to future transactions, thus reducing alert notifications sent to the user.
Per claims 2, 12, and 17 Moritz teaches wherein the user selection is a first user selection and the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations comprising: receiving, prior to enforcing the activated card control rule… activate a geo-enable feature corresponding to the activated card control rule; and continuously receiving, from a global positioning system responsive to the activation of the geo-enable feature corresponding to the activated card control rule, global positioning coordinates to track a current location of a user device of the user, the processing unit enforcing the activated card control rule based at least partially on the tracked current location of the user device [ Col. 11, Ln. 5-67 and Col. 23, Ln. 2-67, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Moritz does not explicitly disclose… receiving a second user selection from the card control dashboard to activate a geo-enabled feature…
Plymouth teaches … receiving a second user selection from the card control dashboard to activate a geo-enabled features… [Paragraphs 0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches applying a plurality of transaction rules to monitor transactions, including location, historical data, and much more, and further communicate with a user device, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly disclose that the user can provide which transaction monitoring options should be tracked by the system in motivation of giving the user the power to choose the rules applicable to transactions. Examiner also notes that the dashboard and user selection are outside the scope of the claims as the claims are directed to the claimed system that monitors and alerts the user of transactions/communicates with another entity.
Per claims 3, Moritz teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations comprising: receiving, prior to enforcing the activated card control rule, a third user selection from the card control dashboard to activate an alert feature corresponding to the geo-enable feature and the activated card control rule; and transmitting, to the user device, an alert indicating a first electronic transaction at the current location involving a merchant associated with the first electronic transaction would violate the activated card control rule, wherein the alert is transmitted prior to the first electronic transaction [ Col. 11, Ln. 5-67 and Col. 23, Ln. 2-67, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Moritz does not explicitly disclose… a third user selection from the card control dashboard to activate an alert feature corresponding to the geo-enable feature and the activated card control rule…
Plymouth teaches … a third user selection from the card control dashboard to activate an alert feature corresponding to the geo-enable feature and the activated card control rule… [Paragraphs 0118, 0011-0012, 0026-0028, 0031, 0084-0085, 0127, 0150, and 103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches applying a plurality of transaction rules to monitor transactions, including location, historical data, and much more, and further communicate with a user device, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly disclose that the user can provide any number of modifications to transaction rules before or during a transaction, basically customizing a user preference, in addition to the claimed system performing a standalone transaction rule determination based on collected data in motivation of giving the user the power to choose the rules applicable to transactions/modify the rules. Examiner also notes that the dashboard and user selection are outside the scope of the claims as the claims are directed to the claimed system that monitors and alerts the user of transactions/communicates with another entity. Furthermore, the above limitation amounts to mere duplication of parts. It’s obvious to receive an infinite of rule modifications or decisions once a single rule modification is received by an entity from another entity that the user interacts with.
Per claim 4, Moritz teaches wherein the user selection is a first user selection, and the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations comprising: ceasing… enforcement of the activated card control rule [Col. 11, Ln. 5-67 and Col. 23, Ln. 2-67, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Moritz does not explicitly disclose …in response to receiving a second user selection from the card control dashboard…
Plymouth teaches …in response to receiving a second user selection from the card control dashboard… [Paragraphs 0118, 0011-0012, 0026-0028, 0031, 0084-0085, 0127, 0150, and 103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches applying a plurality of transaction rules to monitor transactions, including location, historical data, and much more, and further communicate with a user device, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly disclose that the user can provide any number of modifications to transaction rules before or during a transaction, basically customizing a user preference, in addition to the claimed system performing a standalone transaction rule determination based on collected data in motivation of giving the user the power to choose the rules applicable to transactions/modify the rules such as ceasing a rule. Examiner also notes that the dashboard and user selection are outside the scope of the claims as the claims are directed to the claimed system that monitors and alerts the user of transactions/communicates with another entity. Furthermore, the above limitation amounts to mere duplication of parts. It’s obvious to receive an infinite of rule modifications or decisions once a single rule modification is received by an entity from another entity that the user interacts with.
Per claim 5, 13, and 18, Moritz teaches wherein the user selection is a first user selection, and the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations comprising: receiving… to activate an alert feature that transmits an alert to a user device of the user, the alert regarding subsequent electronic transactions that violate the activated card control rule [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 1-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Moritz does not explicitly disclose… receiving, a second user selection from the card control dashboard…
Plymouth teaches … receiving, a second user selection from the card control dashboard… [Paragraphs 0118, 0011-0012, 0026-0028, 0031, 0084-0085, 0127, 0150, and 103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches applying a plurality of transaction rules to monitor transactions, including location, historical data, and much more, and further communicate with a user device, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly disclose that the user can provide any number of modifications to transaction rules before or during a transaction, basically customizing a user preference, in addition to the claimed system performing a standalone transaction rule determination based on collected data in motivation of giving the user the power to choose the rules applicable to transactions/modify the rules. Examiner also notes that the dashboard and user selection are outside the scope of the claims as the claims are directed to the claimed system that monitors and alerts the user of transactions/communicates with another entity. Furthermore, the above limitation amounts to mere duplication of parts. It’s obvious to receive an infinite of rule modifications or decisions once a single rule modification is received by an entity from another entity that the user interacts with.
Per claim 6, 14, and 19 Moritz teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations comprising: receiving, following transmission of the alert to the user device regarding a first electronic transaction that involves the payment card that violates the activated card control rule, a third user selection… configured to modify the activated card control rule into a modified card control rule [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 1-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Moritz does not explicitly disclose …a third user selection from the card control dashboard…
Plymouth teaches …a third user selection from the card control dashboard…[Paragraphs 0118, 0011-0012, 0026-0028, 0031, 0084-0085, 0127, 0150, and 103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches applying a plurality of transaction rules to monitor transactions, including location, historical data, and much more, and further communicate with a user device, to include the teachings of Plymouth to explicitly disclose that the user can provide any number of modifications to transaction rules before or during a transaction, basically customizing a user preference, in addition to the claimed system performing a standalone transaction rule determination based on collected data in motivation of giving the user the power to choose the rules applicable to transactions/modify the rules. Examiner also notes that the dashboard and user selection are outside the scope of the claims as the claims are directed to the claimed system that monitors and alerts the user of transactions/communicates with another entity. Furthermore, the above limitation amounts to mere duplication of parts. It’s obvious to receive an infinite of rule modifications or decisions once a single rule modification is received by an entity from another entity that the user interacts with.
Per claim 7, 15, and 20 Moritz teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations: using, based on the third user selection, the modified card control rule for the first electronic transaction; and using the activated card control rule to restrict a second electronic transaction [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 1-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Claim amounts to mere duplication of parts.
Per claim 8, Moritz teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations: using, based on the third user selection, the modified card control rule for the first electronic transaction and for a predetermined number of subsequent transactions Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 1-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15.
Claim amounts to mere duplication of parts.
Per claim 9, Mortiz teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing unit to perform further operations: disabling, following transmission of the alert to the user device and based on a third user selection from the card control dashboard, the activated card control rule [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 1-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Claim amounts to mere duplication of parts.
Per claim 10, Moritz teaches wherein the computing system is operated by a financial institution that maintains at least one financial account of the user associated with the payment card [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 1-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13, Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15].
Claim amounts to mere duplication of parts.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 of the instant Applicant is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613. Although claim 1 of the instant Application is not identical to claim 1 of Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same scope of invention. The instant Application recites a broader scope compared to Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613. Removal of the additional limitations in Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613 would amount to the claimed scope of the instant application. Such removal of limitation to amount to the instant claimed scope is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
PGPUB 2016/0063497 to Grant et al. teaches user inface at a user device, graphical interface, that allows users to interact with transaction rules to update, modify, alter transaction rules and send said selection to a control system.
PGPUB 2017/0357971 to Pitz teaches transaction authentication based on rules including fraudulent determination using location, activity, and updating said fraudulent determination constantly based on data. Pitz also sending users alerts regarding a transaction and the user providing additional transaction information to settle a transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699