Ex Parte Ranganathan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

13362443 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/362,443 01/31/2012 Prashanth Ranganathan
132906 7590 03/19/2019
Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481)
2323 Victory Ave. #700
Dallas, TX 75219
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
70481.499 (Pl416US1) 5362
EXAMINER
SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRASHANTH RANGANATHAN
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-12,
and 25-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 8. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "methods and systems for credit card ( or
other online or electronic purchase) fraud alerting based on a user's
location." Specification ,r 7.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is PayPal, Inc. Appeal
Brief 2.
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
Illustrative Claim
1. A system, comprising:
a database having stored thereon information about a
plurality of users, wherein information that is stored in the
database about a first user of the plurality of users identifies a
first user cell phone device that is associated with the first user
and a first user account that is associated with the first user; and
a processing system coupled to the database and
configured to, in response to executing stored instructions,
perform operations comprising:
receiving, over each of a plurality of different times
intervals, a set of a plurality of locations, from the first user cell
phone device, as detected using one or more wireless
transmission interfaces, and store each set of the plurality of
locations in the database along with the time interval in which
that set was received;
building, using the sets of the plurality of locations that are
stored in the database along with the time interval in which each
of those sets were received, a plurality of movement-over-time
models for the first user cell phone device;
receiving, from a first merchant device subsequent to
building the plurality of movement over time models, a payment
request to conduct a payment transaction using the first user
account;
determining that the payment transaction is not a web
transaction and, in response, determining a physical location of
the first merchant device;
determining, in response to receiving the payment request,
that the first user cell phone device is unavailable and, in
response, determining a predicted location of the first user cell
phone device using a last known location of the first user cell
phone device, a last known heading of the first user cell phone
device, and a first movement-over-time model of the plurality of
movement-over-time models that is selected based on a last
known time that the first user cell phone device was available
corresponding with a first time interval at which the first
movement over time model was received;
2
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
determining a distance between the physical location of
the first merchant device and the predicted location of the first
user cell phone device; and
communicating an alert if the distance exceeds a
predefined distance threshold.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9--12, and 25-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject
matter. Final Action 3-12.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed September 21, 2017), the Reply Brief
(filed December 26, 2017), the Final Office Action (mailed March 21, 2017)
and the Answer (mailed October 24, 2017), for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because:
[T]he claim is directed to location based payment security which
is an abstract idea similar to the concepts such as collecting and
analyzing information to detect risk and notifying a user when
risk is detected (See Fair Warning v. Iatric) by building
movement over time models based on location information
reported from a mobile computing device and using those
movement over time models to predict a location of the mobile
computing device when the mobile computing device is
unavailable ( abstract ideas similar to the concepts such as
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis (See Electric Power Group
v. Alstom S.A.) using mathematical relationships/formulas (See
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'land also See Bilski v. Kappas)) and
determining a distance between that predicted location and a
merchant device that provided the payment request ( abstract
3
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
ideas similar to the concepts such as comparing information
regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (See
Ambry, Myriad CAFC) and calculating parameters indicating an
abnormal condition (See In re Grams)) to determine whether to
communicate an alert if the distance exceeds a predefined
distance threshold ( abstract idea similar to the concepts such as
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis (See Electric Power Group
v. Alstom S.A. ).
Final Action 4; see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
21 7 (2014) (Describing the two-step framework "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.").
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the US PTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101.
2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Memorandum"). Under the
Memorandum, the Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th Ed.,
Rev.08.2017, 2018).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
4
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Appellant argues the pending claims are not directed to an abstract
idea because claim 1 "relates to a series of concrete, technical steps
performed relative to a real-world hardware device (a user's cell phone)"
and, therefore, "Appellant submits claim 1 is not simply directed to the
abstract idea of 'location based payment security' as alleged by the
Examiner." Appeal Brief 10.
Claim 1 recites financial components and steps involving merchants,
payments, and fraud prevention. These steps comprise fundamental
economic principles (including mitigating risk) or practices and/or
commercial or legal interactions; thus the claim recites the abstract idea of
"certain methods of organizing human activity." Memorandum, Section I
(Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see Specification ,r 7 ("One embodiment
provides methods and systems for credit card ( or other online or electronic
purchase) fraud alerting based on a user's location."). Our reviewing court
has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar
subject matter. See Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1
and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or
protecting against risk."); Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting
"generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract
concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be
completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a computer" not patent
eligible).
5
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, our
analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are
"additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application." See MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h).
The Examiner finds:
[F]unctions such as "storing information, receiving and storing
data, building models based on the data, receiving additional
data, determining locations based on the data and the models,
determining a distance based on determined locations, and
communicating an alert based on a criteria" are conventional
functions of a computer system. The elements of the instant
process, when taken in combination, together do not offer
substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements
when each is taken alone.
Final Action 9.
Appellant contends:
Claim 1 . . . relates to a particular technological environment
where wireless transmission interfaces are used to capture the
location of a cell phone and a plurality of movement-over-time
models are then using the location information.
Claim 1 further relates to first determining that the cell
phone device is not available ( e.g. not visible from a cellular base
tower), then determining a predicted location of the cell phone.
The predicted location is found using a last known location and
heading (e.g., direction of travel) of the cell phone. Further,
predicting the location of the phone also depends on selecting a
particular model from the plurality of movement-over-time
models based on a last known time the cell phone was available
( e.g., in communication with a cellular base tower).
Appeal Brief 9--10.
Claim 1 recites additional limitations beyond the judicial exception of
addressing the problem of fraudulent payment transactions. These
limitations include: (1) "receiving, over each of a plurality of different times
6
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
intervals, a set of a plurality of locations, from the first user cell phone
device," (2) "determining that the payment transaction is not a web
transaction and, in response, determining a physical location of the first
merchant device," (3) "determining a predicted location of the first user cell
phone device using a last known location of the first user cell phone device .
. . corresponding with a first time interval at which the first movement over
time model was received," ( 4) "determining a distance between the physical
location of the first merchant device and the predicted location of the first
user cell phone device," and (5) "communicating an alert if the distance
exceeds a predefined distance threshold."
We conclude these limitations integrate the recited judicial exception
of preventing fraudulent payment transactions into a practical application
because the limitations' additional elements "uses the judicial exception in
some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception."
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Subsequently, we do not sustain the
Examiner's finding that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-12 and 25-35 are not patent
eligible.
7
Appeal2018-002251
Application 13/362,443
DECISION
The Examiner's non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 6, 9--12 and 25-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
8