The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed and entered with the RCE filed 5/11/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 5, 11 and 13-15 have been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12 are directed to a method and product. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter).
Claim 1 is exemplary.
Claim 1 recites utilizing said credit card application … to perform a method comprising: generating a credit card application having a first visualization, a layout, and a plurality of user completable questions and associated fillable boxes; presenting said credit card application…; receiving…, a first user specific information responsive to said plurality of user completable questions of said credit card application; filling said associated fillable boxes with said first user specific information to complete said credit card application; sending,… said completed credit card application to a credit card account provider computer system; and receiving approval for a credit card from said credit card account provider …; automatically, upon receiving said approval for said credit card, …perform a method comprising: initiating a registration process for a credit card management account, said registration process comprising generating a registration application with similar visualization, layout, and plurality of user completable questions and associated fillable boxes as said first visualization, layout, and said plurality of user completable questions and associated fillable boxes; presenting…; receiving,…a second user specific information responsive to said plurality of user completable questions of said registration application; filling said associated fillable boxes with said first user specific information to complete said registration application; and utilizing said similar visualization and layout to compare said first user specific information with said second user specific information to ensure said first user specific information corresponds to said second user specific information; automatically upon successful completion of said registration process, … perform a method comprising: requesting a digital credit card associated with said credit card, said request comprising generating a digital card request with similar visualization and layout as said first visualization and layout but only comprising a single user selectable option; presenting said digital card request … receiving, …, an affirmative response to said single user selectable option, said affirmative response indicating a desire for a digital credit card; sending, … said request for said digital credit card to said credit card account provider…; and automatically, upon receiving said digital credit card from said credit account provider…, performing …a method comprising: storing said …credit card; and presenting… credit card to complete a purchase.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites the series of steps instructing the issuance of a credit card, which is a fundamental economic practice of applying for a credit line and thus falls within the abstract grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of issuing a credit card in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (mobile device, application, modules, display, computer system, digital card) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, Applicants' claims simply recite the transfer of information to and for and a “cross-referencing” step as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of how a computer functions. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea. Under precedent, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or 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.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of issuing a credit card in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 1 168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That paragraph 12 and 40, and Figures 4A-4C of the published Specification indicates that standard off-the-shelf computer technology is usable to implement the claimed invention only bolsters the notion that the claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. (Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354).
Dependent claims 2 and 8 add the additional limitation presenting approval of said credit card account via the display of said mobile device. This is also a mental process.
Dependent claims 3 and 9 add the additional limitation of registering for the credit card management account associated with said credit card without requiring a credit card number associated with said credit card account. This is also insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 4 and 10 add the additional limitation of registration information for registering for said credit card management account is cross-referenced with said credit application information. This is also a mental process.
Dependent claims 6 and 12 add the additional limitation credit application information is selected from a group consisting of name, social security number, zip code and date of birth. This is directed to the abstract idea and similar to claim 1. Thus, claims 1-5, 6-10 and 12 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion of Law
The examiner concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. From these determinations the examiner further notes that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this the examiner finds the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to In re Classen Immunotherapies, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues :
“Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 USPQ2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (decision on remand from the Supreme Court, which had vacated the lower court's prior holding of ineligibility in view of Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010)). "In Classen, the claims recited methods that gathered and analyzed the effects of particular immunization schedules on the later development of chronic immune- mediated disorders in mammals in order to identify a lower risk immunization schedule, and then immunized mammalian subjects in accordance with the identified lower risk schedule (thereby lowering the risk that the immunized subject would later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases). 659 F.3d at 1060-61; 100 USPQ2d at 1495-96. Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. In contrast, in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court determined that the additional steps to "test prices and collect data based on the customer reactions" did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, because the steps were well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities. 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)."
“Here, the Claimed features do much more than generally linking the use of the
exception to a particular technological environment. In contrast, the claimed features
utilize a number of different technological environments in combination with a number of
different specific process steps to provide a specific, integrated, and practical application of the exception”
…”The Claim continues on to recite the specific solution that includes a combination
of different technological environments, features, capabilities, messages,
communications, links, and the like in a specific, integrated, and practical application of
the exception….
“…thus, not only does the claim recite the combination of different technological
environments to provide a specific, integrated, and practical application of the exception into a specific recited solution but the Claim also goes on to address a number of specific components performing the different parts of the solution, the technical details of the message presented on the display that include user completable questions and associated fillable boxes and user selectable options, as well as the interaction (e.g., communication) between the different components.
Moreover, the Claimed elements provide meaningful limitations that restrict the
identified concept to a particular useful application. Additionally, the Claim elements recite a particular way to achieve the desired outcome, as opposed tom merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. “
In Classen, “safe harbor” provision of 271(e)(1) applied for a specific type of claims, in Classen, the claims required a further act of immunization in accordance with a lower risk schedule, moving from the abstract scientific principle to a specific, practical application, and thus was eligible.
In contrast, the instant claims do not recite specific technological implementation details. By applicant’s own admission (originally filed paragraph 8 of specification), the disclosed invention is directed to “embodiments may be practiced without one or more of these specific details. In other instances, well known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the described embodiments” and applicant has not provided any technological implementation details in the claim limitations nor the specification. The specification appears to be directed to solving a business problem. A business problem would wall within the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity and as such, an improvement to an abstract idea is still an abstract idea and not subject matter eligible.
In addition, in response to “address a number of specific components performing the different parts of the solution, the technical details of the message presented on the display that include user completable questions and associated fillable boxes and user selectable options, as well as the interaction (e.g., communication) between the different components.”, Applicant' s response fails to link the legal concepts to the facts of the application under examination.
Arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Applicant need provide facts that back up the position.
Applicants though fail to identify how the various steps and functions performed by the hardware provide an improvement to another technology, i.e., an improvement to how a computer or the recited server performs or executes the abstract idea identified in step 1 of Alice/Mayo framework. The claims do not disclose any improvement specific to the computer rather than an improvement to the underlying abstract idea of facilitating credit card applications. Applicants fail to detail any server interactivity which improves the performance of the computers (servers), communication network, or system overall.
Thus, although possibly providing an improvement to the underlying abstract idea of a fundamental economic process, Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the claims are directed to improving the technical field of computers, communications, networking, or otherwise.
Accordingly, for reasons of record and as set forth above, the examiner maintains the rejection of the claims as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and thereby being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Paisley (US10332203 B) discloses a credit card application information is requested from a user. A credit card application information is provided to a credit authorization server for credit approval based on the credit card application information. Additionally, an indication is received for credit approval of the user from the credit authorization server. The indication includes a graphical representation of credit information and the graphical represented displayed for use in completing a payment transaction.
Sanchez et al. (US2014/0070001) disclose a system for a consumer to receive a new credit application at their mobile device. The consumer can complete and electronically transmit the credit application via a mobile application on their mobile device. A transaction processing system can receive the credit application and electronically pass it along to the financial institution issuing the credit for a determination on the credit application. An approval or denial can be electronically received by the transaction processing system from the financial institution. If approved, the transaction processing system can forward the approval along with the new credit account information and a code or other device to allow the consumer to immediately use the new credit account. The mobile device can receive the approval via the mobile application as well as any coupons associated with the new account and can provide the consumer with a mechanism to immediately purchase items with the newly approved credit account.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights