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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 8/29/2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10-11, and 19-20 and cancelled claim 6, 16, 21-22. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 and 23-24 are pending for examination.
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “managing resources consumed for transaction”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”-mitigating risk and “commercial or legal interactions”: -sales activities or behaviors;). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claim 1 recites “receiving…transaction data set including parameters associated with a first data processing task for …. transaction originated at merchant point-of sale…of a merchant”, “the parameters identifying a quantity of…resource consumed from a purchaser resource pool by the data processing task”, “generate signals for communication an … message to a destination associated with the purchase resource pool, the…message communicating an option for deferring execution of at least a portion of the data processing task thereby deferring a corresponding consumption of a portion of the quantity or the …resource from the purchaser resource pool”, “the purchaser resource pool, responsive to the …message, establishing a reserve corresponding to the portion of the quantity of the … resource from the purchaser resource pool, the reserve expiring after a defined period, “upon receiving response signals indicative of instructions to defer execution…merchant point-of-sale…and generating a second data processing task as a replacement for the first data processing task for releasing the portion of the quantity of the …resource to the purchaser resource pool”, “…. after initiation of a payment process by merchant point-of-sale…the merchant point-of-sale …. Receiving a response indicative of a complete payment process, the generated second data processing task scheduled to execute at a deferred one or more future times after the complete payment process free of interaction with the merchant point-of-sale…”, “…, from the second data processing task ,one or more deferred child data processing tasks for executing at least the portion of the data processing task at the one or more future times, when executed, the more or more deferred child data processing tasks consuming the portion of the quantity of the …resource from the purchaser resource pool”, “wherein each of the one or more deferred child data processing tasks is …reserve, until executed, a respective sub-portion of the quantity of the …. resource from the purchaser resource pool”, “when the reserve on any respective sub-portion of the portion of the quantity of the …resource from the purchaser resource pool has expired after the defined period, generating a new child data processing task to re-establish a new reserve on the respective sub-portion of the portion of the quantity of the …resource from the purchaser resource pool”, “wherein each of the one or more deferred child data processing tasks is associated with the …message and the second data processing task” and “wherein the one or more deferred child data processing tasks include at least one data processing tasks for reserving quantities of resources”.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “computing devices”, “over a network”, “electronic” and “device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use. With respect to “intercepting the first data processing task from the…device… the intercepting conducted after…”, the claims lack detail regarding what “intercepting” comprise and how it is conducted (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). With respect to “spawning….one or more deferred child ta data processing tasks”, the claims lack detail regarding what “spawning” comprise and how it is performed (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “intercepting” and “spawning” are performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 2-5, 7-10 and 23 further recite “wherein the…transaction data set is received forma transaction processing system…execute data processing tasks for consuming or adding ….resource to one or more resource pools (claim 2)”, “wherein the parameters associated with the data processing task include a payment token; identifying, from a plurality of user data profiles stored at a data storage … a first user data profile associated with the payment token; determining the destination to which the …message is to be communicated based on a destination associated with the first user data profile (claim 3)”, “receiving a data set for a new user data profile, the new data set including a payment identifier; sending a registration message including the payment identifier to a transaction processing system, wherein registration of the payment identifier enables the transaction processing system to send an…transaction data set for each data processing task associated with the payment identifier, the … transaction data set including a payment token; receiving, from the transaction processing system, a response message including the payment token; storing the payment token in associated with the new user data profile and deleting the payment identifier (claim 4)”, “generating one or more data processing tasks for reserving one or more portions of the quantity of the …resource in the purchaser resource pool; wherein when executed, the one or more deferred child data processing tasks consuming the one or more reserved portions of the quantity of the … resource (claim 5)”, “wherein the signals for communicating the …message communicating the option for deferring execution of at lest a portion of the data processing task are generated when the quantity of the … resource consumed from a purchaser resource pool meets a threshold value when a merchant category code associated with the merchant involved in the …transaction matches one or more triggering merchant category codes (claim 7)”, “generating signals for triggering display of a …. associated with the purchaser resource pool, … enabling selection of one or more options for deferring execution of the at least the portion of the data processing task (claim 8)”, “wherein the one or more options include options defining at least one of: a numbered of deferred child data processing tasks to be generated; a deferred quantity of the …resource to be consumed by the one or more deferred child data processing tasks; or the one or more future times at which the one or more deferred child data processing tasks are to be executed (claim 9)”, “upon determining from the parameters associated with the first data processing task for executing the …transaction satisfy a subscription condition, generating signals for communicating a subscription …message to the destination associated with the purchaser resource pool, the subscription …. message communicating an option for triggering execution of a plurality of future data processing tasks for periodically consuming subscription quantities of the … resource from the purchaser resource pool (claim 10)”, “wherein the signals for communicating the … message communicating the option for deferring execution of at least a portion of the data processing task are generated when: an identifier associated with the merchant matches one or more triggering merchant identifiers or when a merchant category code associated with the merchant matches one or more triggering merchant category codes (claim 23)”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”-mitigating risk and “commercial or legal interactions”: -sales activities or behaviors;). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 2-5, 7-10 and 23, such as “electronic” and “device/user interface at a device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 2-5, 7-10 and 23 are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is also directed to the abstract idea of “managing resources consumed for transaction”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”-mitigating risk and “commercial or legal interactions”: -sales activities or behaviors;). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 1, claim 11 the additional elements of claim 1 such as “at least one processor”, “over a network”, “electronic” and “device” represent the user of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use. With respect to “intercepting the first data processing task from the…device… the intercepting conducted after…”, the claims lack detail regarding what “intercepting” comprise and how it is conducted (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). With respect to “spawning….one or more deferred child ta data processing tasks”, the claims lack detail regarding what “spawning” comprise and how it is performed (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “intercepting” and “spawning” are performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 12-15, 17-19 and 24 further recite “wherein the…transaction data set is received forma transaction processing system…execute data processing tasks for consuming or adding ….resource to one or more resource pools (claim 12)”, “wherein the parameters associated with the data processing task include a payment token; identifying, from a plurality of user data profiles stored at a data storage … a first user data profile associated with the payment token; determining the destination to which the …message is to be communicated based on a destination associated with the first user data profile (claim 13)”, “receiving a data set for a new user data profile, the new data set including a payment identifier; sending a registration message including the payment identifier to a transaction processing system, wherein registration of the payment identifier enables the transaction processing system to send an…transaction data set for each data processing task associated with the payment identifier, the … transaction data set including a payment token; receiving, from the transaction processing system, a response message including the payment token; storing the payment token in associated with the new user data profile and deleting the payment identifier (claim 14)”, “generating one or more data processing tasks for reserving one or more portions of the quantity of the …resource in the purchaser resource pool; wherein when executed, the one or more deferred child data processing tasks consuming the one or more reserved portions of the quantity of the … resource (claim 15)”, “wherein the signals for communicating the …message communicating the option for deferring execution of at least a portion of the data processing task are generated when the quantity of the … resource consumed from a purchaser resource pool meets a threshold value when a merchant category code associated with the merchant involved in the …transaction matches one or more triggering merchant category codes (claim 17)”, “generating signals for triggering display of a …. associated with the purchaser resource pool, … enabling selection of one or more options for deferring execution of the at least the portion of the data processing task (claim 18)”, “upon determining from the parameters associated with the first data processing task for executing the …transaction satisfy a subscription condition, generating signals for communicating a subscription …message to the destination associated with the purchaser resource pool, the subscription …. message communicating an option for triggering execution of a plurality of future data processing tasks for periodically consuming subscription quantities of the … resource from the purchaser resource pool; upon receiving subscription response signals indicative of a confirmation the potion for triggering execution of a plurality of future data processing tasks for periodically consuming the subscription quantities, generating signals for initiating execution of the plurality of future child data processing tasks at one or more future subscription items (claim 19)”, “wherein the signals for communicating the … message communicating the option for deferring execution of at least a portion of the data processing task are generated when: an identifier associated with the merchant matches one or more triggering merchant identifiers or when a merchant category code associated with the merchant matches one or more triggering merchant category codes (claim 24)”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”-mitigating risk and “commercial or legal interactions”: -sales activities or behaviors;). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 12-15, 17-19 and 24, such as “electronic” and “device/user interface at a device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 12-15, 17-19 and 24 are not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is also directed to the abstract idea of “managing resources consumed for transaction”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”-mitigating risk and “commercial or legal interactions”: -sales activities or behaviors;). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 1, claim 20 the additional elements of claim 1 such as “at least one processor”, “over a network”, “electronic” and “device” represent the user of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use. With respect to “intercepting the first data processing task from the…device… the intercepting conducted after…”, the claims lack detail regarding what “intercepting” comprise and how it is conducted (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). With respect to “spawning….one or more deferred child ta data processing tasks”, the claims lack detail regarding what “spawning” comprise and how it is performed (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “intercepting” and “spawning” are performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the limitations “intercepting the first data processing task from the merchant point-of-sale (POS) device and generating a second data processing task as a replacement for the first data processing task” and “the intercepting conducted after initiation of a payment process by the merchant point-of-sale (POS) device… the generated second data processing task scheduled to execute at a deferred one or more futures times after the complete payment process free of interaction with the merchant point-of-sale (POS) device” which renders the claims indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear how the complete payment process could occur without any interaction with POS device since the payment process is initiated by the POS device. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the limitation “the generated second data processing task scheduled to execute at a deferred one or more future times after the complete payment process free of interaction with the merchant point-of-sale (POS) device” which renders the claims indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear whether 1) the scheduling is performed free of interaction with the POS device 2) the executing is performed free of interaction with the POS device 3) the complete payment process is performed free of interaction with the POS device or 4) the second data processing task is generated free of interaction with the POS device. The claims are indefinite for having more than one possible meaning and/or interpretations.
All claims dependent from claims 1, 11 and 20 inherit the same rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph.
The claimed invention, considered as a whole including the newly added limitation “free of interaction with the merchant point-of-sale (POS) device”, is not taught by the prior arts found in Examiner’s search. Therefore no 102/103 rejection is provided.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Kumar et al. (US 2005/0091139 A1), directed to delay payment obligations and create reserve account.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims no longer recite “not able to observe the replacement”, the previous 112 2nd rejection regarding “not able to observe the replacement” is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are now statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1) the claims are not reciting fundamental economic principles or practices and 2) the claims describe a specific approach for integration into a practical application through the spawning of processing tasks 3) the managing and re-establishment of the reserves is preformed automatically. The Examiner disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of “managing resources consumed for transaction”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”-mitigating risk and “commercial or legal interactions”: -sales activities or behaviors;). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). With respect to “intercepting the first data processing task from the…device… the intercepting conducted after…”, the claims lack detail regarding what “intercepting” comprise and how it is conducted (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). With respect to “spawning….one or more deferred child ta data processing tasks”, the claims lack detail regarding what “spawning” comprise and how it is performed (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “intercepting” and “spawning” are performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). In response to applicant’s argument that the steps are performed automatically, it is noted that the additional elements of “computing devices”, “over a network”, “electronic” and “device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692