DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 3/16/2026 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
This application is a CON of 17/853,011 06/29/2022 ABN. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-10 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 11-20 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 11) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising one or more computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors
[B] receiving purchase data for a new financial transaction by a consumer with a merchant that is performed in-person with a payment card,
[C] wherein the purchase data includes a transaction description string that identifies the merchant and a merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction;
[D] receiving merchant data that includes a number of locations where the merchant transacts business and historical financial transaction data with the merchant,
[E] wherein the historical financial transaction data includes previously transacted business by the merchant with a plurality of consumers and identifies a location, within the number of locations,
[F] where each historical financial transaction is reported to have been performed;
[G] selecting, from the merchant data, a number of historical financial transactions to determine a frequency value that represents a rate at which historical financial transactions are reported to have been performed at the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction;
[H] determining a first confidence factor by calculating a probability that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is a true physical location of the new financial transaction,
[I] wherein the probability calculation uses the frequency at which the historical financial transactions are reported to have been performed at the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction and a probability value that is based, at least in part, on the number of locations where the merchant transacts business;
[J] receiving consumer data for a plurality of individuals that have performed an historical in-person financial transaction with the merchant,
[K] wherein the consumer data includes a reported location of non-merchant in-person financial transactions that the plurality of individuals performed on the same day as the historical financial transaction with the merchant;
[L] determining a second confidence factor by calculating, from the consumer data, a fraction of the non-merchant financial transactions that the plurality of individuals performed on the same day as the historical financial transaction with the merchant that have a reported location that is the same as the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction; and
[M] determining, based on the first confidence factor and the second confidence factor, that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is the true physical location of the new financial transaction.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recites: selecting historical financial transactions and calculating a confidence factor ([G], [H]); receiving data and determining a second confidence factor ([J], [L]); and validating the physical transaction location ([M]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing judgement, opinion in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “selecting, from the merchant data, a number of historical financial transactions”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally selecting data from a log, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining a first confidence factor by calculating a probability that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is a true physical location of the new financial transaction”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally calculating a confidence factor, without physical aid. Further, the step “receiving consumer data for a plurality of individuals that have performed an historical in-person financial transaction with the merchant”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally receiving customer data, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining a second confidence factor by calculating a fraction of the non-merchant financial transactions that the plurality of individuals performed on the same day as the historical financial transaction with the merchant”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally determining a second confidence factor, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is the true physical location of the new financial transaction”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally determining that the reported location is the real location customer is in, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “processor,” and “memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the historical financial transaction data includes previously transacted business by the merchant with a plurality of consumers and identifies a location, within the number of locations,”; “where each historical financial transaction is reported to have been performed”; “wherein the probability calculation uses the frequency at which the historical financial transactions are reported to have been performed at the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction and a probability value that is based, at least in part, on the number of locations where the merchant transacts business;”; “wherein the consumer data includes a reported location of non-merchant in-person financial transactions that the plurality of individuals performed on the same day as the historical financial transaction with the merchant” as applied to the transaction data, the probability calculation, and the consumer data, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving purchase data ([B]), receiving merchant data ([D]), When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 10), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 10) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). They also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 10 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 5, which is representative of dependent claims 15, recites:
sending the transaction description string to a data aggregator; and
receiving from the data aggregator an inferred merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 (which is representative of dependent claims 15) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of dependent claims 19, recites:
determining true physical locations for a plurality of financial transactions performed by the consumer in a single day;
determining a distance between the true physical locations for the plurality of financial transactions; and
performing a security action if the distance between two or more financial transactions within the plurality of financial transactions exceeds an identified distance threshold.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (identifying the accurate locations for in-person payment card transactions).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 (which is representative of dependent claims 19) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, which are representative of dependent claims 12-14, 16-18, 20, respectively, recite:
wherein the purchase data includes an "isPhysical" bit and the new financial transaction is determined to be in-person based on a positive "isPhysical" bit.
wherein the merchant location within the purchase data and the number of locations where each historical financial transaction is reported to have been performed within the merchant data are identified by at least one of a state, a city, or a zip code.
wherein the transaction description string explicitly identifies the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction.
wherein the probability value weighs each of the number of locations where the merchant transacts business equally so that there is an equal probability that a transaction occurs at each of the locations where the merchant transacts business.
wherein the probability value for each of the locations where the merchant transacts business is adjusted to account for a population density of each location within the number of locations where the merchant transacts business.
wherein the probability calculation uses a binomial cumulative distribution function to calculate the probability that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is the true physical location of the new financial transaction.
wherein the security action is providing an alert to the consumer or placing a hold on one or more of the consumer's payment cards.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements (in this instance – the purchase data, the merchant location, the transaction description, the probability value, the probability calculation, and the security action) and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, which are representative of dependent claims 12-14, 16-18, 20, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 11-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyllie et al (US 2020/0258077), in view of Zarakas et al (2012/0357967.
Regarding Claims 1, 11: Wyllie discloses: A method for confirming geographical accuracy of reported locations of in-person payment card transactions, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising one or more processors, the method comprising: {see at least fig2, rc170 [0023] transaction analysis component}
receiving purchase data for a new financial transaction by a consumer with a merchant that is performed in-person with a payment card, wherein the purchase data includes a transaction description string that identifies the merchant and a merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction; {see at least [0008] a transaction occurs; time (reads on date) of the transaction, vendor, location of the transaction}
receiving merchant data that includes a number of locations where the merchant transacts business and historical financial transaction data with the merchant, wherein the historical financial transaction data includes previously transacted business by the merchant with a plurality of consumers and identifies a location, within the number of locations, where each historical financial transaction is reported to have been performed; {see at least [0007] vendor locations for the historical transactions}
determining a first confidence factor by calculating a probability that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is a true physical location of the new financial transaction, {see at least [0039] probability that user is at the vendor location (reads on confidence factor)}
wherein the probability calculation uses the frequency at which the historical financial transactions are reported to have been performed at the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction and a probability value that is based, at least in part, on the number of locations where the merchant transacts business; {see at least [0039] probability that user is at the vendor location}
receiving consumer data for a plurality of individuals that have performed an historical in-person financial transaction with the merchant, {see at least fig1, rc145, [0022] historical user transactions information}
wherein the consumer data includes a reported location of non-merchant in-person financial transactions that the plurality of individuals performed on the same day as the historical financial transaction with the merchant; {see at least fig1, rc105, rc145, rc150; fig2, rc215, rc225, [0038] probability that the suer is at vendor location (reads on user reported location is the same as merchant location)}
determining a second confidence factor by calculating, from the consumer data, a fraction of the non-merchant financial transactions that the plurality of individuals performed on the same day as the historical financial transaction with the merchant that have a reported location that is the same as the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction; and {see at least [0039] security tool may combine the two probabilities to determine a total probability}.
determining, based on the first confidence factor and the second confidence factor, that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is the true physical location of the new financial transaction. {see at least fig1, rc105, rc145, rc150; fig2, rc215, rc225, [0038] probability that the suer is at vendor location (reads on user reported location is the same as merchant location; reads on true physical location)}
Wyllie does not disclose, however, Zarakas discloses:
selecting, from the merchant data, a number of historical financial transactions to determine a frequency value that represents a rate at which historical financial transactions are reported to have been performed at the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction; {see at least [0089] user frequents a particular location of the merchant}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wyllie to include the elements of Zarakas. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a reference for judging if the payment is in-person or not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wyllie evidently discloses identifying accurate locations of in-person payment. Zarakas is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of selecting historical transactions in the same or similar context. Since both identifying accurate locations of in-person payment, as well as selecting historical transactions are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wyllie, as well as Zarakas would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wyllie / Zarakas.
Regarding Claims 2, 12: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie further discloses:
wherein the purchase data includes an "isPhysical" bit and the new financial transaction is determined to be in-person based on a positive "isPhysical" bit. {see at least [0019] in-person purchase with card with magnetic stripe (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation requirement (see MPEP 2111), reads on “isPhysical” bit)}
Regarding Claims 3, 13: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Zarakas further discloses:
wherein the merchant location within the purchase data and the number of locations where each historical financial transaction is reported to have been performed within the merchant data are identified by at least one of a state, a city, or a zip code. {see at least [0089] merchant location with area, zip code}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wyllie, Zarakas to include additional elements of Zarakas. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a reference for judging if the payment is in-person or not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wyllie, Zarakas evidently discloses identifying the location of a consumer at the time of the purchase. Zarakas is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of the location identification parameters in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 14: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie further discloses:
wherein the transaction description string explicitly identifies the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction. {see at least [0008]-[0009] location of the vendor (reads on merchant location}
Regarding Claims 5, 15: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie further discloses:
sending the transaction description string to a data aggregator; and {see at least [0031] security tool may store information about both fraudulent and legitimate transactions (reads on providing transaction description); [0041]; fig1, rc190, storing details of transaction requests (reads on providing transaction description)}
receiving from the data aggregator an inferred merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction. {see at least [0053] the new transaction request corresponds to a legitimate transaction}
Regarding Claims 6, 16: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie further discloses:
wherein the probability value weighs each of the number of locations where the merchant transacts business equally so that there is an equal probability that a transaction occurs at each of the locations where the merchant transacts business. {see at least [1257] equal probability}
Regarding Claims 9, 19: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie further discloses:
determining true physical locations for a plurality of financial transactions performed by the consumer in a single day; {see at least fig1, rc105, rc145, rc150; fig2, rc215, rc225, [0038] probability that the user is at vendor location (reads on user reported location is the same as merchant location); [0043] threshold for fraudulent behavior}
determining a distance between the true physical locations for the plurality of financial transactions; and {see at least [0030] card at a location 30 miles from field (reads on distance between two transaction points}
performing a security action if the distance between two or more financial transactions within the plurality of financial transactions exceeds an identified distance threshold. {see at least [0030] card at a location 30 miles from field (reads on distance between two transaction points}
Regarding Claims 10, 20: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 9, 19. Wyllie further discloses:
wherein the security action is providing an alert to the consumer or placing a hold on one or more of the consumer's payment cards. {see at least [0030] card at a location 30 miles from field (reads on distance between two transaction points}
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyllie et al (US 2020/0258077), in view of Zarakas et al (2012/0357967, in further view of Fakhrai-Rad (US 9,910,962).
Regarding Claims 7, 17: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie, Zarakas does not disclose, however, Fakhrai-Rad discloses:
wherein the probability value for each of the locations where the merchant transacts business is adjusted to account for a population density of each location within the number of locations where the merchant transacts business. {see at least (37)/[5:15-21], (51)/[6:64-7:15] populations adjusted odds}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wyllie, Zarakas to include the elements of Fakhrai-Rad. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to in order to more accurately assess if the payment was in-person or not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wyllie, Zarakas evidently discloses identifying the location of a consumer at the time of the purchase. Fakhrai-Rad is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of adjusting the probability value with the population density, in the same or similar context. Since both the identifying location of a consumer at the time of the purchase, as well as adjusting the probability value with the population density are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wyllie, Zarakas, as well as Fakhrai-Rad would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wyllie, Zarakas / Fakhrai-Rad.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyllie et al (US 2020/0258077), in view of Zarakas et al (2012/0357967, in further view of Bentolia et al (US 2003/0101451).
Regarding Claims 8, 18: Wyllie, Zarakas discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Wyllie, Zarakas does not disclose, however, Bentolia discloses:
wherein the probability calculation uses a binomial cumulative distribution function to calculate the probability that the merchant location that is associated with the new financial transaction is the true physical location of the new financial transaction. {see at least [0378] using a binomial cumulative distribution function}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wyllie, Zarakas to include the elements of Bentolia. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to more accurately assess if the payment was in-person or not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wyllie, Zarakas evidently discloses identifying the location of a consumer at the time of the purchase. Bentolia is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of calculating the probably with a specific method in the same or similar context. Since both identifying the location of a consumer at the time of the purchase, as well as calculating the probably with a specific method are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wyllie, Zarakas, as well as Bentolia would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wyllie, Zarakas / Bentolia.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210182830 A1 2021-06-17 29 EDWARDS; Joshua et UTILIZING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL TO DETERMINE WHETHER A TRANSACTION ACCOUNT USER IS TRAVELING - A device may receive historical transaction data associated with transactions conducted via transaction accounts associated with users, and may receive historical travel data indicating whether the users were traveling during times associated with the transactions. The device may train a machine learning model with the historical transaction data and the historical travel data to generate a trained machine learning model, and may receive transaction data associated with transactions conducted via a transaction account associated with a user. The device may process the transaction data, with the trained machine learning model, to determine a confidence score that provides an indication of whether the user is traveling, and may determine whether the confidence score satisfies a confidence threshold. The device may determine that the user is traveling when the confidence score satisfies the confidence threshold, and may perform one or more actions based on determining that the user is traveling.
US 20130066733 A1 2013-03-14 24 LEVY; Robert I. et al. ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION IN A REAL-WORLD ENVIRONMENT - A system for enabling a retail transaction between a brick-and-mortar retailer and a customer, comprising: a mobile device including an application operated by the customer while physically present in the brick-and-mortar retailer, wherein the application is designed to obtain product information about a product and offer information from the customer including a proposed price for the product; a user information aggregation server designed to receive the product information and the offer information from the application on the mobile device and augment the product information and offer information with information about the customer, and to forward the product information, offer information, and customer information to a decision server; and further designed to receive a decision as to whether the offer has been accepted by the decision server, wherein the decision is at least partially based on the customer information, and to notify the customer.
US 20130046621 A1 2013-02-21 14 Asseoff; David et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INCENTING OFFLINE SALES WITH ONLINE ADVERTISING - A method of advertising on a communication network, includes the use of computational equipment for receiving a network request from a user, transmitting via a network advertising data for presenting an advertisement to the user, receiving a first transmission indicative of a user responding to such advertisement and storing information relating to the user's response. A second transmission is received indicative of a purchase of the item by a user where payment for such purchase is identified by a transaction card. The data for the second transmission is obtained from a data storage that includes data indicative of purchases by a plurality of users at a plurality of merchants, and such data is used to determine that a purchase occurred at a location where a user traveled for such purchase. A reward is generated corresponding to the user responding to the advertisement.
US 20200202443 A1 2020-06-25 88 Maruyama; Atsushi et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING AN INITIAL MARGIN - An exemplary system according to the present disclosure comprises a computing device that in operation, causes the system to receive financial product or financial portfolio data, map the financial product to a risk factor, execute a risk factor simulation process involving the risk factor, generate product profit and loss values for the financial product or portfolio profit and loss values for the financial portfolio based on the risk factor simulation process, and determine an initial margin for the financial product. The risk factor simulation process can be a filtered historical simulation process.
US 20190087805 A1 2019-03-21 16 Hayes; Anthony et al. Methods and Systems for Providing Chargeback Scoring for Network Transactions - Systems and methods are provided for use in imposing chargeback probability scores on network transactions. One exemplary method includes obtaining at least one transaction detail of a network transaction between a consumer and a merchant. A computing device determines a chargeback probability score for the network transaction based, at least in part, on the at least one transaction detail. Chargeback data is transmitted to an entity associated with the network transaction, where the chargeback data includes at least one of (a) the chargeback probability score and (b) an indicator that the chargeback probability score fails to satisfy one or more thresholds, thereby permitting the entity to hold and/or decline the network transaction when the chargeback probability score fails to satisfy one or more thresholds.
US 10510091 B1 2019-12-17 24 Lesley; Katherine Systems, methods and computer program products for providing digital coupons to users - A method of providing digital coupons to a user includes comparing a first plurality of codes with a second plurality of codes to identify one or more matching codes. The first plurality of codes are associated with products offered at a discount by a retailer, and the second plurality of codes are associated with products having a manufacturer discount associated therewith. A listing of one or more products associated with the respective one or more matching codes is displayed along with a digital coupon for each respective product. Each digital coupon has a combined value of the retailer discount and the manufacturer discount, and each digital coupon is user-selectable for placement in a digital wallet. In response to user selection, a digital coupon is placed within the digital wallet and is available for redemption at a location of the retailer.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
