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 .
Status of Claims
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed and entered with the RCE filed 12/19/2025. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 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.”
Step 1.
Claims 1-12 are all directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The answer is YES.
STEP 2A, Prong 1
Claims 1-12 are directed to a computer-implemented method for seamless progression of credit related processes on a mobile device i.e., mobile computing device. Uses include but are not limited to a mobile phone, a smart phone, a PDA and a computing tablet e.g., iPad (RTM: tablet computer). More particularly, the method involves prompting a user for credit application information through a mobile device for credit card application processing. Credit application information is received at the mobile device. Approval of credit card account is presented based on the credit application information at the mobile device. Use of a digital credit card is enabled for repeat purchases by the mobile device, where the digital credit card is associated with credit card account and seamless progression of credit related processes on the mobile device is provided.
The practice of issuing credit cards is a fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction. Thus, the invention is an example of a conceptual idea subject to the Supreme Court's "concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citations omitted). As determined earlier, none of these steps recite specific technological implementation details. Thus, the claims are directed to certain method of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A, Prong 2
The next issue is whether the claims not only recite, but are more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether they are instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e., integrated into a practical application.1
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. "[A]pplication[s]" of such concepts " 'to a new and useful end, ' " we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the " 'buildin[g] block[s]' " of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the analysis at Mayo step two.
“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment. "' Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implement[t]" an abstract idea "on . . . a computer," that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional feature[e]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted).
"[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply
PNG
media_image2.png
1
1
media_image2.png
Greyscale
instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [ ] on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely functional. The limitations recite generic computer processing expressed in functional terms to be performed by any and all possible means and so present no more than abstract conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
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.
The examiner therefore concludes that the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to receive, send and “cross-reference” data amounts to one of the most basic functions of a computer, or as in this case, a “wireless device,” i.e., cell phone. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses.2
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
PNG
media_image3.png
13
6
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 of prompting the user to register for the web-based credit card management account associated with said credit card account immediately after 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 web-based credit card management account associated with said credit card account 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 web-based credit card management account is cross-referenced with said credit application information. This is also a mental process.
Dependent claims 5 and 11 add the additional limitation of receiving, at said mobile device, said digital credit card immediately after approval of the digital credit card. This is also insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 6 and 12 add the additional limitation of wherein said credit application information is selected from a group consisting of name, social security number, zip code and date of birth. This is also nonfunctional descriptive material.
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_image4.png
1
1
media_image4.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 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes applicant’s history provided (rem 7-8) on 35 USC 101 and Subject Matter Eligibility and notes the instant claimed invention has been examined in light of the most recent guidance and current MPEP edition.
Further, regarding applicant’s argument with respect to issuing digital credit cards, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Digital credit cards are available as prior art well before 2014 (see attached search notes as well as cited prior art not relied upon). As such, applicant’s arguments to such are not convincing see rem 9).
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.
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, the 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. Sanchez et al. disclose systems and methods for facilitating the approval and use of a credit account via mobile commerce.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
2 MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.