DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's communications received on November 12, 2025 and December 3, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
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.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/504,288, filed
October 18, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,524,761, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/119,623 filed on August 31, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 11,151,550, which is a continuation in part of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/211,657 filed on July 15, 2016, which is a continuation in part of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/984,210 filed on December 30, 2015, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/242,023 filed on October 15, 2015 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/209,714 filed on August 25, 2015. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application(s). Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 is in compliance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 12/3/2025 are objected to because the text within figures 3 and 6 is illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 10 and 15: The phrase “wherein the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities” is non-functional descriptive material as it only describes, at least in part, characteristics/details about the identifier (e.g., why/when the identifier was generated). However, the fact that identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed, including how the identifier is determined. It is also noted that applicant is not positively reciting a step where the identifier is generated.
Examiner has provided prior art for these non-functional phrases/limitations, however, these phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Accordingly, the prior art is only provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because it is missing a period at the end of the sentence/limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14 and 7, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,524,761. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In this instance, claim 1 of the ‘761 patent corresponds to claim 1 of the instant application. Independent claim 1 differs from claim 1 of the ‘761 patent, in part, because claim 1 of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 1 of the ‘761 patent. For example: claim 1 of the ‘761 patent describes determining a common identifier (CID), whereas claim 1 of the instant application determine an identifier; claim 1 of the instant application fails to recite that identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities, the CID indicating that the user has been authorized for conducting transactions with the plurality of entities; claim 1 of the instant application generates a token, however it is not described as a single use token as in the ‘761 patent; and claim 1 of the ’761 patent describes updating a social graph and deriving a context based on the social graph, whereas claim 1 of the instant application updates a profile and derives a context based on the profile.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,524,761 to achieve the recited functions found in independent claim 1 of Application no. 19/387,436 (i.e., the instant application) because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 of the ‘761 patent corresponds to claim 8 of the instant application. Independent claim 8 differs from claim 14 of the ‘761 patent, in part, because claim 8 of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 14 of the ‘761 patent. For example: claim 14 of the ‘761 patent describes determining a common identifier (CID), whereas claim 8 determines an identifier; claim 8 accesses one or more postings on a social medial platform that were posted by the user, however claim 14 of the ‘761 patent also requires that the postings be within a threshold time period from receiving the request; claim 14 of the ’761 patent describes updating a social graph and deriving a context based on the social graph, whereas claim 8 of the instant application updates a profile and derives a context based on the profile; and claim 8 processes the transaction based on the context, whereas claim 14 processes the transaction based on the context and information associated with the first transaction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,524,761 to achieve the recited functions found in independent claim 8 of Application no. 19/387,436 (i.e., the instant application) because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 of the ‘761 patent corresponds to claim 15 of the instant application. Independent claim 15 differs from claim 7 of the ‘761 patent, in part, because claim 15 of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 7 of the ‘761 patent. For example: claim 7 of the ‘761 patent describes determining a common identifier (CID), whereas claim 15 determines an identifier; claim 15 accesses one or more postings on an online platform that were posted by the user, however claim 7 of the ‘761 patent accessing one or more postings on a social media platform that were posted by the user within a particular time period; claim 7 of the ’761 patent describes updating a social graph and deriving a context based on the social graph, whereas claim 15 of the instant application updates a profile and derives a context based on the profile; and claim 15 processes the transaction based on the context, whereas claim 7 processes the transaction based on the context and information associated with the first transaction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,524,761 to achieve the recited functions found in independent claim 15 of Application no. 19/387,436 (i.e., the instant application) because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson et al. (US 2012/0238242 A1) (hereinafter “Hirson”) in view of Raj et al. (US 2014/0344153 A1) (hereinafter “Raj”) in view of Hosp (US 2014/0081750 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Hirson discloses a system comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing instructions (See at least Hirson [0221-0222]; [0227-0228]; [0230-0236]; Fig. 27 item 408); and
one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to (See at least Hirson [0221-0222]; [0228]; [0230-0236]; Fig. 27 items 403 and 408):
receive, from a device, a request for processing a first transaction between a user and a first entity (See at least Hirson [0122-0123]; [0196]; [0202-0203]; [0213]. Hirson discloses receiving, from a device (i.e., mobile phone/mobile phone A), a request for performing a first transaction between a user (i.e., a user, e.g., a user of mobile phone A, a first user, a buyer) and a first entity (e.g., a merchant, a second user, a seller).);
determine an identifier associated with the user that has been used in a second transaction between the user and a second entity different from the first entity (See at least Hirson [0047]; [0056-0057]; [0197]; [0203]; [0214-0216]; Fig. 26 step 459. Hirson discloses determining an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) associated with the user (i.e., the user, e.g., the user of mobile phone A, the first user, the buyer) that has been used in a second transaction between the user and a second entity (i.e., a merchant or service provider of the various merchants or service providers) different from the first entity (i.e., different from the merchant/seller).);
generate a payment token usable for the first transaction based on the identifier (See at least Hirson [0135-0136]. Hirson discloses generating a payment token (i.e., code) usable for the first transaction based on the identifier.);
transmit, via a communication network different from the payment card network, the payment token to the device (See at least Hirson [0099]; [0101-0102]; [0176]; [0212]. Hirson discloses transmitting (i.e., providing), via a communication network (i.e., via SMS messages, via emails, instant messages, voice message, live calls from operators, etc.) different from the payment card network, the payment token (i.e., code) to the device (i.e., to mobile phone A).);
receive the payment token (See at least Hirson [0138-0139]; [0176]. Hirson discloses receiving the payment token (i.e., code).);
access one or more postings on a social media platform that were posted by the user (See at least Hirson [0184]; [0186]; [0193]. Hirson discloses accessing one or more postings on a social media platform (i.e., information/data from a social networking website) that were posted by the user (e.g., on a profile page).);
update a profile associated with the user based on the one or more postings (See at least Hirson [0180]; [0183-0187]; [0193]; [0199]. Hirson discloses updating a profile associated with the user (i.e., a data record associated with the user) based on the one or more postings.);
derive a context related to the user based at least in part on the updated profile (See at least Hirson [0185-0186]; [0190-193]. Hirson discloses deriving a context (i.e., a score) related to the user based at least in part on the updated profile (i.e., based on the data record).); and
process the first transaction for the user based on the context and information associated with the first transaction (See at least Hirson [0174]; [0190-0195]. Hirson discloses processing the first transaction for the user based on the context (i.e., based on the score) and information associated with the first transaction (e.g., the amount for the transaction, accounts associated with the transaction, etc.).).
As indicated above, Hirson discloses generating a payment token and, subsequently, receiving the payment token (i.e., code). Hirson [0135-0136]; [0138-0139]; [0176]. Hirson also indicates that the user is provided with a list of options to fund the purchase, such as credit cards, bank accounts, or an account associated with the phone number. Hirson [0127]; [0151]; [0212]; [0214]. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj teaches:
wherein the payment token includes data that enables routing of the payment token via a payment card network (See at least Raj [0055-0057]; [0062-0063]; [0164]. Raj teaches wherein the payment token includes data (e.g., a code; numerous identifiers, including an issuer bank identification number (BIN), a wallet identifier, or a user account identifier; etc.) that enables routing of the payment token (i.e., token) via a payment card network (i.e., via a payment processing network (PPN)).); and
receiv[ing] the payment token via the payment card network, wherein the payment token is routed to the system via the payment card network based on the data included in the payment token (See at least Raj [0164-0165]. Raj teaches receiving the payment token (i.e., token) via the payment card network (i.e., via the payment processing network (PPN)), wherein the payment token is routed to the system (i.e., to the CTC module/server) via the payment card network (i.e., via the PPN) based on the data included in the payment token (e.g., based on a code/identifier in the token).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Hirson further discloses generating and using a score (i.e., a context) which is indicative of the creditworthiness of a user requesting a transaction. Hirson [0183]. Hirson indicates that the score may be used to select a security measure for the confirmation of the transaction. Hirson [0190]. Hirson also indicates that the users social networking data can be used to generate/determine the score. Hirson [0185-0186]; [0193]. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Hosp teaches:
subsequent to receiving the payment token, access one or more postings on a social media platform that were posted by the user within a threshold time period from receiving the request (See at least Hosp [0118]; [0120-121]; [0123]; [0127]; [0139]. Hosp teaches subsequent to receiving the payment token (i.e., subsequent to swiping a payment card), access one or more postings on a social media platform (i.e., obtaining social network activity data from a social network, e.g., the location of social media post) that were posted by the user (i.e., customer) within a threshold time period from receiving the request (i.e., from seeing a transaction).); and
wherein the profile indicates locations of the user over a plurality of time periods (See at least Hosp [0044]; [0118]; [0120-0124]. Hosp teaches wherein the profile (i.e., cardholder timeline) indicates locations of the user (i.e., of the cardholder) over a plurality of time periods (e.g., the time period of multiple transactions).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hosp into Hirson’s method of using social networking data to generate a score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to use social media post to detect suspected fraudulent transactions (Hosp [0124]).
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Hirson, Raj and Hosp discloses the system of claim 1. Hirson further discloses wherein the identifier is usable to identify a funding instrument associated with the user (See at least Hirson [0045-0047]; [0056]; [0071]; [0152-0155]. Hirson discloses wherein the identifier (i.e., first phone number/phone number A) is usable to identify a funding instrument (i.e., a financial account, e.g., a credit card account) associated with the user (i.e., associated with the user of mobile phone A/the first user/the buyer).), wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to:
retrieve funding information associated with the funding instrument based on the identifier (See at least Hirson [0071]; [0152-0155]; [0214]. Hirson discloses retrieving funding information (i.e., account information, e.g., an account number) associated with the funding instrument (i.e., associated with the financial account) based on the identifier (i.e., based on the phone number).).
Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj further teaches:
encod[ing] the funding information into the payment token (See at least Raj [0062-0063] “The token may include numerous identifiers, including an issuer bank identification number (BIN), a wallet identifier, or a user account identifier.”. Raj teaches encoding the funding information (e.g., a wallet identifier, user account identifier) into the payment token.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Hirson, Raj and Hosp discloses the system of claim 2. Hirson further discloses wherein processing the first transaction is further based on the funding information (See at least Hirson [0045-0047]; [0056]; [0071]; [0152-0155]; [0214]. Hirson discloses wherein processing the first transaction is further based on the funding information (i.e., account information, e.g., an account number).).
Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj further teaches wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: determine the funding information based on the payment token (See at least Raj [0062-0063]; [0179-0180]; Fig. 16 steps 1602-1606. Raj teaches determining the funding information (e.g., a wallet identifier, user account identifier) based on the payment token (i.e., based on the token).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Hirson, Raj and Hosp discloses the system of claim 1. Hirson further discloses wherein the payment token comprises a security context, and wherein processing the first transaction comprises verifying that the first transaction satisfies a set of security criteria based on the security context (See at least Hirson [0100-0101]; [0148-0149]. Hirson discloses wherein the payment token (i.e., code) comprises a security context (i.e., an expiration), and wherein processing the first transaction comprises verifying that the first transaction satisfies a set of security criteria based on the security context (i.e., that the confirmation/validation in the form of a code was received prior to the expiration).).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Hirson, Raj and Hosp discloses the system of claim 1. Hirson further discloses wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: determine a location of the user based on the one or more postings, wherein the context represents at least the location of the user (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0190-0193]; Hirson Claim 23. Hirson discloses determining a location of the user based on the one or more postings (i.e., physical location stated on profile pages), wherein the context (i.e., score) represents at least the location of the user (i.e., note the location is used to determine the score).).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Hirson, Raj and Hosp discloses the system of claim 1. Hirson further discloses wherein the profile comprises a data structure that represents relationships and activities associated with the user (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0183-0186]; [0193]; Fig. 22. Hirson discloses wherein the profile (i.e., data record associated with the user) comprises a data structure that represents relationships (e.g., friends of the member, number of degrees separated between users, number of friends, number of friends in common, number of direction communications between the users in the social networking website, etc.) and activities associated with the user (e.g., time of activities, years on the social network site, number of direction communications between the users in the social networking website, etc.).).
Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Hirson, Raj and Hosp discloses the system of claim 1. Hirson further discloses wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: perform a risk analysis associated with the first transaction based on the context, wherein processing the first transaction is further based on a result from performing the risk analysis (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0174]; [0190-0193]. Hirson discloses performing a risk analysis associated with the first transaction (i.e., evaluates the transaction/purchase) based on the context (i.e., based on the score), wherein processing the first transaction is further based on a result from performing the risk analysis (e.g., based on if the score is high or low, based on if the score is above or below a threshold).).
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson et al. (US 2012/0238242 A1) (hereinafter “Hirson”) in view of Raj et al. (US 2014/0344153 A1) (hereinafter “Raj”) in view of Hosp (US 2014/0081750 A1) in view of Nomula (US 2016/0364763 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Hirson discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computer system, an identifier associated with a user for use in a first transaction between the user and a first entity (See at least Hirson [0047]; [0056-0057]; [0122-0123]; [0197]; [0203]; [0214-0216]; [0220-221]; Fig. 26 step 459. Hirson discloses determining, by a computer system (i.e., data processing system), an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) associated with a user (i.e., user, e.g., the user of mobile phone A, the first user, the buyer) for use in a first transaction between the user and a first entity (e.g., a merchant, a second user, a seller).);
generating, by the computer system, a payment token usable for the first transaction based on the identifier (See at least Hirson [0135-0136]. Hirson discloses generating, by the computing system, a payment token (i.e., code) usable for the first transaction based on the identifier.);
transmitting, by the computer system and via a communication network, the payment token to a device of the user (See at least Hirson [0099]; [0101-0102]; [0176]; [0212]. Hirson discloses transmitting (i.e., providing), by the computer system and via a communication network (i.e., via SMS messages, via emails, instant messages, voice message, live calls from operators, etc.), the payment token (i.e., code) to the device of the user (i.e., to mobile phone A).);
receiving, by the computer system, the payment token (See at least Hirson [0138-0139]; [0176]. Hirson discloses receiving, by the computer system, the payment token (i.e., code).) ;
accessing, by the computer system, one or more postings on a social media platform that were posted by the user (See at least Hirson [0184]; [0186]; [0193]. Hirson discloses accessing, by the computer system, one or more postings on a social media platform (i.e., information/data from a social networking website) that were posted by the user (e.g., on a profile page).);
updating, by the computer system, a profile associated with the user based on the one or more postings (See at least Hirson [0180]; [0183-0187]; [0193]; [0199]. Hirson discloses updating, by the computer system, a profile associated with the user (i.e., a data record associated with the user) based on the one or more postings.);
deriving, by the computer system, a context related to the user based at least in part on the updated profile (See at least Hirson [0185-0186]; [0190-193]. Hirson discloses deriving, by the computer system, a context (i.e., a score) related to the user based at least in part on the updated profile (i.e., based on the data record).); and
processing, by the computer system, the first transaction for the user based on the context (See at least Hirson [0174]; [0190-0195]. Hirson discloses processing, by the computer system, the first transaction for the user based on the context (i.e., based on the score).).
As indicated above, Hirson discloses generating a payment token and, subsequently, receiving the payment token (i.e., code). Hirson [0135-0136]; [0138-0139]; [0176]. Hirson also indicates that the user is provided with a list of options to fund the purchase, such as credit cards, bank accounts, or an account associated with the phone number. Hirson [0127]; [0151]; [0212]; [0214]. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj teaches:
where the payment token is received via a payment card network different from the communication network, wherein the payment token is routed to the computer system via the payment card network based on data included in the payment token (See at least Raj [0055-0057]; [0062-0063]; [0163-0165]; Fig. 13. Raj teaches where the payment token is received via a payment card network (i.e., via the payment processing network (PPN)) different from the communication network (i.e., different from the path/network from which user receives the token. Note the user receives the token from the mobile tokenization hub, not the PPN), wherein the payment token is routed to the computer system (i.e., to the CTC module/server) via the payment card network (i.e., via the PPN) based on data included in the payment token (e.g., based on a code/identifier in the token).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Hirson further discloses generating and using a score (i.e., a context) which is indicative of the creditworthiness of a user requesting a transaction. Hirson [0183]. Hirson indicates that the score may be used to select a security measure for the confirmation of the transaction. Hirson [0190]. Hirson also indicates that the users social networking data can be used to generate/determine the score. Hirson [0185-0186]; [0193]. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Hosp teaches:
wherein the profile indicates locations of the user over a plurality of time periods (See at least Hosp [0044]; [0118]; [0120-0124]. Hosp teaches wherein the profile (i.e., cardholder timeline) indicates locations of the user (i.e., of the cardholder) over a plurality of time periods (e.g., the time period of multiple transactions).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hosp into Hirson’s method of using social networking data to generate a score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to use social media post to detect suspected fraudulent transactions (Hosp [0124]).
As indicated above, Hirson discloses determining an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) associated with a user (i.e., user, e.g., the user of mobile phone A, the first user, the buyer) for use in a first transaction between the user and a first entity (e.g., a merchant, a second user, a seller). Hirson [0047]; [0056-0057]; [0122-0123]; [0197]; [0203]; [0214-0216]; [0220-221]; Fig. 26 step 459. Hirson also describes how the identifier (i.e., first phone number/phone number A) can be used to aid in conducting a transaction. Hirson [0014-0015]; Fig. 19; Fig. 20; Fig. 26. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose wherein the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities.
Examiner notes the phase “wherein the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities” is merely providing descriptive material about the identifier (e.g., why the identifier was generated). The fact that the identifier was generated for a particular reason, and/or at a particular time, fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed. For example, the identifier is not determined in a particular manner simply because the identifier was generated based on previous interactions of the user. Accordingly, this phrase/limitation will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Even if the above phrase was deemed to affect the scope of the claimed invention, Nomula teaches where the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities (See at least Nomula [0028-0029]; [0031]; [0040]. Where the identifier was generated (i.e., created) based on previous user interactions (e.g., creating an account, signing into a web page, etc.) of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces (i.e., a plurality of websites/platforms) associated with a plurality of entities (e.g., social networking entities, ecommerce entities, etc.).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings Nomula into Hirson’s method of using an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) to aid in conducting a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to present targeted content to a user based on information aggregated from one or more online sources (Nomula [0003]).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the method of claim 8. Hirson further discloses wherein the payment token is associated with an expiration date, and wherein the method further comprises: subsequent to the receiving the payment token, determining that the payment token is valid based on the expiration date (See at least Hirson [0100-0101]; [0148-0149]. Hirson discloses wherein the payment token (i.e., code) is associated with an expiration date (i.e., an expiration time limit), and wherein the method further comprises: subsequent to the receiving the payment token (i.e., receiving the code), determining that the payment token is valid based on the expiration date (i.e., determining that the confirmation/validation, in the form of a code, was received prior to the expiration).).
Regarding Claim 10: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the method of claim 8. Hirson further discloses, wherein the first entity is a merchant (See at least Hirson [0047]; [0057]; [0071] “the mobile phones (116 and 117) are used by the corresponding users to make payments and/or manage funds, such as for making purchases in various websites hosted on the servers (113) of merchants”; [0093]).
Hirson does not explicitly disclose but Nomula further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of entities is the social media platform (See at least Nomula [0024] [0026]; [0028-0029]; [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings Nomula into Hirson’s method of using an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) to aid in conducting a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to present targeted content to a user based on information aggregated from one or more online sources (Nomula [0003]).
Regarding Claim 11: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the method of claim 8. Hirson further discloses determining a location of the user based on the one or more postings, wherein the context represents at least the location of the user (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0190-0193]; Hirson Claim 23. Hirson discloses determining a location of the user based on the one or more postings (i.e., physical location stated on profile pages), wherein the context (i.e., score) represents at least the location of the user (i.e., note the location is used to determine the score).).
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the method of claim 8. Hirson does not explicitly disclose comparing the location of the user against the tracked locations of the user over the plurality of time periods.
Hosp, on the other hand, teaches comparing the location of the user against the tracked locations of the user over the plurality of time periods (See at least Hosp [0118]; [0120-0124]. Hosp teaches comparing the location of the user (i.e., the location of the user when performing a transaction) against the tracked locations of the user (i.e., against the locations indicated in the social media posts) over the plurality of time periods (e.g., for each transaction).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hosp into Hirson’s method of using social networking data to generate a score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to use social media post to detect suspected fraudulent transactions (Hosp [0124]).
Regarding Claim 13: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the method of claim 8. Hirson further discloses wherein the payment token is associated with a use restriction, and wherein the method further comprises: determining that the payment token is usable for the first transaction based on the use restriction and information associated with the first transaction (See at least Hirson [0100-0101]; [0148-0149]. Hirson discloses wherein the payment token (i.e., code) is associated with a use restriction (e.g., an expiration time limit, that it was used only one time), and wherein the method further comprises: determining that the payment token is usable for the first transaction based on the use restriction (e.g., based on receiving the confirmation/validation, in the form of a code, prior to the expiration) and information associated with the first transaction (e.g., that the code was received from the appropriate device for the transaction, e.g., mobile phone A).).
Regarding Claim 14: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the method of claim 8. Hirson further discloses performing a risk analysis associated with the first transaction based on the context, wherein processing the first transaction is further based on a result from performing the risk analysis (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0174]; [0190-0193]. Hirson discloses performing a risk analysis associated with the first transaction (i.e., evaluates the transaction/purchase) based on the context (i.e., based on the score), wherein processing the first transaction is further based on a result from performing the risk analysis (e.g., based on if the score is high or low, based on if the score is above or below a threshold).).
Regarding Claim 15: Hirson discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause a machine to perform operations comprising:
in response to receiving a request for processing a transaction between a user and a first entity, determining an identifier associated with the user (See at least Hirson [0047]; [0056-0057]; [0122-0123]; [0196-0197]; [0202-0203]; [0213-0216]; Fig. 26 step 459. Hirson discloses in response to receiving a request for processing a transaction between a user (i.e., a user, e.g., a user of mobile phone A, a first user, a buyer) and a first entity (e.g., a merchant, a second user, a seller), determining an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) associated with the user.);
generating a payment token for the transaction based on the identifier (See at least Hirson [0135-0136]. Hirson discloses generating a payment token (i.e., code) for the transaction based on the identifier.);
transmitting, via a communication network, the payment token to a device of the user (See at least Hirson [0099]; [0101-0102]; [0176]; [0212]. Hirson discloses transmitting (i.e., providing), via a communication network (i.e., via SMS messages, via emails, instant messages, voice message, live calls from operators, etc.), the payment token (i.e., code) to the device of the user (i.e., to mobile phone A).);
receiving, by the computer system, the payment token (See at least Hirson [0138-0139]; [0176]. Hirson discloses receiving, by the computer system, the payment token (i.e., code).);
accessing one or more postings on an online platform that were posted by the user (See at least Hirson [0184]; [0186]; [0193]. Hirson discloses accessing one or more postings on an online platform (i.e., information/data from a social networking website) that were posted by the user (e.g., on a profile page).);
updating a profile associated with the user based on the one or more postings (See at least Hirson [0180]; [0183-0187]; [0193]; [0199]. Hirson discloses updating a profile associated with the user (i.e., a data record associated with the user) based on the one or more postings.);
deriving a context related to the user based at least in part on the updated profile (See at least Hirson [0185-0186]; [0190-193]. Hirson discloses deriving a context (i.e., a score) related to the user based at least in part on the updated profile (i.e., based on the data record).); and
processing the transaction for the user based on the context (See at least Hirson [0174]; [0190-0195]. Hirson discloses processing the transaction for the user based on the context (i.e., based on the score).).
As indicated above, Hirson discloses generating a payment token and, subsequently, receiving the payment token (i.e., code). Hirson [0135-0136]; [0138-0139]; [0176]. Hirson also indicates that the user is provided with a list of options to fund the purchase, such as credit cards, bank accounts, or an account associated with the phone number. Hirson [0127]; [0151]; [0212]; [0214]. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj teaches:
where the payment token is received via a payment card network different from the communication network (See at least Raj [0055-0057]; [0062-0063]; [0163-0165]; Fig. 13. Raj teaches where the payment token is received via a payment card network (i.e., via the payment processing network (PPN)) different from the communication network (i.e., different from the path/network from which user receives the token. Note the user receives the token from the mobile tokenization hub, not the PPN).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Hirson further discloses generating and using a score (i.e., a context) which is indicative of the creditworthiness of a user requesting a transaction. Hirson [0183]. Hirson indicates that the score may be used to select a security measure for the confirmation of the transaction. Hirson [0190]. Hirson also indicates that the users social networking data can be used to generate/determine the score. Hirson [0185-0186]; [0193]. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Hosp teaches:
wherein the profile indicates locations of the user over a plurality of time periods (See at least Hosp [0044]; [0118]; [0120-0124]. Hosp teaches wherein the profile (i.e., cardholder timeline) indicates locations of the user (i.e., of the cardholder) over a plurality of time periods (e.g., the time period of multiple transactions).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hosp into Hirson’s method of using social networking data to generate a score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to use social media post to detect suspected fraudulent transactions (Hosp [0124]).
As indicated above, Hirson discloses determining an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) associated with a user (i.e., user, e.g., the user of mobile phone A, the first user, the buyer). Hirson [0047]; [0056-0057]; [0122-0123]; [0197]; [0203]; [0214-0216]; [0220-221]; Fig. 26 step 459. Hirson also describes how the identifier (i.e., first phone number/phone number A) can be used to aid in conducting a transaction. Hirson [0014-0015]; Fig. 19; Fig. 20; Fig. 26. However, Hirson does not explicitly disclose wherein the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities.
Examiner notes the phase “wherein the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities” is merely providing descriptive material about the identifier (e.g., why the identifier was generated). The fact that the identifier was generated for a particular reason, and/or at a particular time, fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed. For example, the identifier is not determined in a particular manner simply because the identifier was generated based on previous interactions of the user. Accordingly, this phrase/limitation will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Even if the above phrase was deemed to affect the scope of the claimed invention, Nomula teaches where the identifier was generated based on previous user interactions of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces associated with a plurality of entities (See at least Nomula [0028-0029]; [0031]; [0040]. Where the identifier was generated (i.e., created) based on previous user interactions (e.g., creating an account, signing into a web page, etc.) of the user with a plurality of electronic interfaces (i.e., a plurality of websites/platforms) associated with a plurality of entities (e.g., social networking entities, ecommerce entities, etc.).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings Nomula into Hirson’s method of using an identifier (i.e., a first phone number/phone number A) to aid in conducting a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to present targeted content to a user based on information aggregated from one or more online sources (Nomula [0003]).
Regarding Claim 16: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15. Hirson further discloses wherein the identifier is usable to identify a funding instrument associated with the user (See at least Hirson [0045-0047]; [0056]; [0071]; [0152-0155]. Hirson discloses wherein the identifier (i.e., first phone number/phone number A) is usable to identify a funding instrument (i.e., a financial account, e.g., a credit card account) associated with the user (i.e., associated with the user of mobile phone A/the first user/the buyer).), wherein the operations further comprise:
retrieving funding information associated with the funding instrument based on the identifier (See at least Hirson [0071]; [0152-0155]; [0214]. Hirson discloses retrieving funding information (i.e., account information, e.g., an account number) associated with the funding instrument (i.e., associated with the financial account) based on the identifier (i.e., based on the phone number).).
Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj further teaches:
encoding the funding information into the payment token (See at least Raj [0062-0063] “The token may include numerous identifiers, including an issuer bank identification number (BIN), a wallet identifier, or a user account identifier.”. Raj teaches encoding the funding information (e.g., a wallet identifier, user account identifier) into the payment token.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Regarding Claim 17: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16. Hirson further discloses wherein processing the transaction is further based on the funding information (See at least Hirson [0045-0047]; [0056]; [0071]; [0152-0155]; [0214]. Hirson discloses wherein processing the transaction is further based on the funding information (i.e., account information, e.g., an account number).).
Hirson does not explicitly disclose, but Raj further teaches, subsequent to the receiving the payment token, determining the funding information based on the payment token (See at least Raj [0062-0063]; [0179-0180]; Fig. 16 steps 1602-1606. Raj teaches, subsequent to the receiving the payment token (i.e., the token), determining the funding information (e.g., a wallet identifier, user account identifier) based on the payment token (i.e., based on the token).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raj into Hirson’s method which provides various methods (e.g., a credit card) to pay for a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features because introducing tokens in place of actual PANs can reduce the exposure and may minimize security implications for the merchants and wallet providers (Raj [0068]).
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15. Hirson further discloses wherein the payment token comprises a security context, and wherein processing the transaction comprises verifying that the transaction satisfies a set of security criteria based on the security context (See at least Hirson [0100-0101]; [0148-0149]. Hirson discloses wherein the payment token (i.e., code) comprises a security context (i.e., an expiration), and wherein processing the transaction comprises verifying that the transaction satisfies a set of security criteria based on the security context (i.e., that the confirmation/validation in the form of a code was received prior to the expiration).).
Regarding Claim 19: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15. Hirson further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining a location of the user based on the one or more postings, wherein the context represents at least the location of the user (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0190-0193]; Hirson Claim 23. Hirson discloses determining a location of the user based on the one or more postings (i.e., physical location stated on profile pages), wherein the context (i.e., score) represents at least the location of the user (i.e., note the location is used to determine the score).).
Regarding Claim 20: The combination of Hirson, Raj, Hosp and Nomula discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15. Hirson further discloses wherein the profile comprises a data structure that represents relationships and activities associated with the user (See at least Hirson [0162]; [0183-0186]; [0193]; Fig. 22. Hirson discloses wherein the profile (i.e., data record associated with the user) comprises a data structure that represents relationships (e.g., friends of the member, number of degrees separated between users, number of friends, number of friends in common, number of direction communications between the users in the social networking website, etc.) and activities associated with the user (e.g., time of activities, years on the social network site, number of direction communications between the users in the social networking website, etc.).).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Moscoe et al. (US 2014/0074568 A1) discloses the use of a common data identifier (universal recognition number) uniquely associated with a user (consumer) in a variety of different arrangements. The common data identifier (universal recognition number) may also be uniquely associated with a payment number that itself is uniquely associated with the user (consumer). Moscoe [0230].
Wetzel (US 2015/0193774 A1) discloses a location processor that receives, via a network, location information from a social media system, wherein the location information is associated with the location of the customer, and a fraud processor that executes a fraud detection algorithm to determine whether to approve a transaction based in part on the received location information. Wetzel Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights