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 is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 19/373,012 filed on October 29, 2025, titled: “Systems And Methods For Providing A Delegate Notification Scheme”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 10/29/2025 and is a CON of US Application No. 17/935,736 filed on 09/27/2022 (Patented No. 12,469,029) and claims no other priority of a foreign application.
For the purpose of examination, the date of 09/27/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 12,469,029. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application recites substantially the same limitations as the claims of the Patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, both the Application and Patent are directed to the same invention of creating and providing a delegate notification scheme to a vulnerable user, have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Application No. 19/373,012
Patent No. 12,469,029
Claim 12, A method, using one or more processors and a memory, comprising:
Claim 12, A method, using one or more processors and a memory, comprising:
creating a delegate notification scheme for a vulnerable user, the delegate notification scheme including one or more delegates associated with one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers;
creating a data store including one or more delegates associated with one or more intervention alert trigger events;
creating a prioritization scheme to transmit one or more notification messages to the one or more delegates by:
selecting, for each of the one or more delegates, a communications channel used to transmit the one or more notification messages, and
assigning, to the communications channel, a channel priority used to transmit the one or more notification messages based on an input of a vulnerable user, wherein the channel priority. comprises a sequential transmission, a simultaneous transmission, or a combination thereof, of the one or more notification messages to one or more user devices;
receiving transaction data for a transaction associated with the vulnerable user from at least one second computing device;
receiving, via banking network, transaction data associated with a transaction;
determining that one or more trigger events has occurred based on the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers and the transaction data;
automatically determining that one or more triggered events have occurred based on the one or more intervention alert trigger events and the transaction data;
in response to determining that one or more trigger events has occurred based on the transaction data, determining one or more particular delegates of the one or more delegates;
in response to automatically determining that the one or more triggered events have occurred, determining one or more particular delegates of the one or more delegates;
transmitting one or more notification messages to the one or more particular delegates based on the delegate notification scheme;
automatically transmitting, to the one or more user devices via the banking network using the sequential transmission, the simultaneous transmission, or the combination thereof, the one or more notification messages to the one or more particular delegates based on the one or more triggered alert events and on the prioritization scheme when the one or more trigger events have occurred, wherein a first message of the one or more notification messages is selected for transmission to a first delegate of the one or more particular delegates based on the channel priority;
receiving one or more delegate response messages from the one or more particular delegates;
preventing transmission of a second message for a predetermined amount of time;
automatically updating the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers by removing the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers or by changing a trigger threshold of the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers based on the one or more delegate response messages; and
automatically transmitting, to the one or more user devices via the banking network using the sequential transmission, the simultaneous transmission, or the combination thereof, the second message of the one or more notification messages to a second delegate of the one or more particular delegates when the predetermined amount of time has expired; and
automatically processing the transaction to debit or to credit an account identified via the transaction data based on the one or more response messages.
receiving, via the banking network, one or more delegate response messages from the one or more particular delegates, wherein the one or more delegate response messages indicates an approval or a rejection of the transaction and wherein the banking network automatically processes the transaction to debit or to credit an account identified via the transaction data based on the approval of the transaction and not on the rejection.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG (Subject Matter Eligibility), Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-11 recite a computing device comprising processors and memories with stored instructions, claims 12-15 recite a method comprising a series of steps, and claims 16-20 recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium with stored instructions for providing a delegate notification scheme as indicated by the title of the Application. Therefore, the claims recite a machine, process, and manufacture which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 12, A method, using one or more processors and a memory, comprising:
creating a delegate notification scheme for a vulnerable user, the delegate notification scheme including one or more delegates associated with one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers;
receiving transaction data for a transaction associated with the vulnerable user from at least one second computing device;
determining that one or more trigger events has occurred based on the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers and the transaction data;
in response to determining that one or more trigger events has occurred based on the transaction data, determining one or more particular delegates of the one or more delegates;
transmitting one or more notification messages to the one or more particular delegates based on the delegate notification scheme;
receiving one or more delegate response messages from the one or more particular delegates;
automatically updating the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers by removing the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers or by changing a trigger threshold of the one or more dynamic intervention alert triggers based on the one or more delegate response messages; and
automatically processing the transaction to debit or to credit an account identified via the transaction data based on the one or more response messages.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a computing device comprising processors and memories with stored instructions). More specifically, the claim recites concepts correspond to Commercial or Legal Interactions including a method for creating and providing a notification scheme for alerting delegates for a vulnerable user by: creating a delegate notification scheme for a vulnerable user; receiving transaction data for a transaction; determining one or more trigger events has occurred; determining one or more particular delegates; transmitting one or more notification messages; receiving one or more delegate response messages; updating the dynamic intervention alert triggers by removing the dynamic intervention alert triggers or by changing a trigger threshold of the dynamic intervention; and processing the transaction to debit or to credit an account identified via the transaction data. The claim is directed to a method for creating and providing a notification scheme for alerting delegates for a vulnerable user which is a Method Of Organizing Human Activity - a Commercial Interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
Additionally, although the preamble of claim 12 recites “A method, using one or more processors and a memory, comprising:”, the method steps of claim body are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. None of the method steps in the claim are clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil or within the human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. If a claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of computer components (i.e., a computing device comprising processors and memories) do not take the claim out of the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 12 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claim 1 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the independent claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 12, and 16 include the additional elements, such as a computing device comprising processors, memory with stored instructions, all are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system (see Publication, paragraphs 13-24 and Figure 1) to perform the creating, receiving, determining, determining, receiving, updating, and processing steps. The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Independent claims 1, 12, and 16 do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 element of using a computer to perform the receiving, querying, transmitting/receiving, transmitting/receiving, and transmitting functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-20 depend on independent claims 1, 12, and 16 and thus include all of the limitations and features of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1, 12, and 16.
Claims 2 and 13 recite the additional elements “wherein the one or more intervention alert trigger events is based on one or more of a transaction amount, a transaction type, a merchant type, and an account type, or a combination thereof.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the intervention alert trigger events and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements “wherein determining that the one or more trigger events have occurred further comprises: analyzing voice data from the transaction data using a voiceprint analysis model to detect stress indicators in the vulnerable user or a merchant voice data; determining a fraud output based on the detected stress indicators; and triggering an occurrence of the one or more trigger events when the stress indicators exceed a predefined threshold.”. The limitations are additional instructions for analyzing voice data, determining a fraud output, and triggering an occurrence of the when stress indicators exceed a predefined threshold when one or more trigger events have occurred and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 18 recite the additional elements “wherein changing a trigger threshold comprises automatically increasing the trigger threshold if one or more transactions that use the trigger threshold have been approved.”. The limitations are additional instructions for changing a trigger threshold and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the additional elements “wherein the one or more particular delegates includes a first delegate and a second delegate, wherein the first delegate and second delegate are associated with a common intervention alert trigger event or are associated with different intervention alert trigger events.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the particular delegates which includes a first and a second delegates and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6-7 and 15 recite the additional elements “wherein the delegate notification scheme includes a prioritization scheme comprising transmitting the one or more notification messages to the one or more delegates simultaneously.” and “wherein the prioritization scheme includes a channel priority, and wherein transmitting the one or more messages to the first and second particular delegates includes transmitting the first message to the first delegate with priority over the second delegate.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the delegate notification scheme and the prioritization scheme and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the additional elements “wherein the operations further include determining a fraud output based on the transaction data; wherein determining the one or more particular delegates includes determining the one or more particular delegates based on the fraud output.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the operations including determining a fraud output and the particular delegates based on the fraud output and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more delegate response messages indicates an approval or rejection of the transaction; wherein the operations further include: transmitting an approval signal for a rejection signal, based on the approval or the rejection, to a transaction processing system; and using the transaction processing system, automatically denying the transaction in response to the rejection signal or automatically approving the transaction in response to the approval signal.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the operations further include transmitting an approval signal for a rejection signal and denying/approving the transaction in response to the rejection/approval signal and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the additional elements “wherein the one or more delegate response messages indicates a flag message for the transaction, wherein a signal based on the flag message is provided to an enterprise fraud system.”. The limitations are additional instructions for the delegate response messages to indicate a flag message for the transaction and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and formatting information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 20 recite the additional elements “wherein transmitting the one or more notification messages includes transmitting to one or more delegate devices associated with the one or more notified delegates; receiving includes receiving the one or more delegate response messages from the one or more delegate devices.”. The limitations are additional instructions for transmitting the notification messages and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 12, and 16 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. There is no inventive concept found in the claims. T he claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for creating and providing a notification scheme for alerting delegates for a vulnerable user. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, system memory, or query, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Satyan “Apparatus And Method For Centralized Application Notification”, (US Publication No. 2013/0241918, dated 09/19/2013). Satyan teaches:
An apparatus and a method for centralized notification management in a mobile terminal are provided. The apparatus includes a communication unit for receiving notification data from an external device, at least one application, each application having a notification function for notifying a user when corresponding notification data is received, a display unit, a notification management unit for generating a user interface for managing the notifications of the at least one application, and for generating notification settings for each of the at least application settings, according to user input, a storage unit for storing the notification settings generated by the notification management unit, and a controller for controlling the display unit to display the user interface generated by the notification management unit and for controlling the mobile terminal to generate a notification in response to receiving the notification data, the notification generated according to the stored notification settings.
Brown et al. “Pairing Transactions And Notifications”, (US Publication No. 2016/0371689, dated 12/12/2016). Brown teaches:
A computer-implemented method performed by a processor of a financial institution computing system relates to providing a notification relating to a transaction event between an account holder and a merchant. Transaction data relating to the transaction event between the account holder and the merchant is received from the merchant. The transaction event is associated with a financial account of the account holder. A notification is defined based on the transaction data. The notification includes a trigger event and notification content, and relates to a follow-up event to be performed by the account holder with the merchant. Upon occurrence of the trigger event, the notification is transmitted to the account holder.
Bhojwani et al. “Method And System For Defining Financial Transaction Notification Preferences”, (US Publication No. 2009/0210886). Bhojwani teaches:
A method and system for defining financial transaction notification preferences is disclosed. A computer-implemented method for defining notification preferences using a financial transaction notification message served to a user on a mobile device and using properties of the financial transaction includes the steps of serving the financial transaction notification message, the financial transaction notification message being related to a financial transaction performed by the user, receiving a notification preference response message from the user, and defining at least one notification filtering rule based on the notification preference response message and the properties of the financial transaction. A system operable to implement the computer-implemented method includes a transaction notification module operable to serve the financial transaction notification message, the financial transaction notification message being related to a financial transaction performed by the user, a notification preference receiver module operable to receive a notification preference response message from the user, and a notification preference processor module operable to define at least one notification filtering rule based on the notification preference response message and the properties of the financial transaction.
Rephlo “System And Method For Triggering Mobile Device Functionality Using A Payment Card”, (US Publication No. 2014/0172577). Rephlo teaches:
A system and method in accordance with example embodiments may include providing functionality triggers to a consumer's mobile device in response to using a payment card in order to make a purchase. Functionality triggers may include account functionality, rewards functionality, social networking functionality, and offer or advertisement functionality to be performed on a consumer's mobile device.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights