DETAILED ACTION
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
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 23 September 2025.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 and 20 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §112
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the newly added limitations are not a method of commercial or legal interactions, as it necessarily involves use of specific machines and/or technologies. Examiner first notes that the claims do not positively recite said camera or microphone and do not positively recite capturing data using said peripherals. Rather, it merely involves using said data meaning that the BRI of the claims need not necessarily require active use of said peripherals but rather merely use the data produced by said peripherals. Regardless, while examiner agrees that a camera or microphone is not a Commercial or Legal Interaction, Examiner notes the following: “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.” See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims’ use of a camera and/or microphone does not alter or affect how the process steps of determining automatic payment are performed. Therefore the recitation of said components does not render the claims eligible.
Applicant argues that the steps make the process of performing online payment among users more efficient and more user-friendly and thereby rendering the claim directed to an improvement in computer-related technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that the lack of prior-art-based rejections further demonstrates that the claims are novel and non-obvious and thus not well-understood, routine or conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims, when viewed as a whole and in their ordered combination provide an inventive concept that qualifies as “significantly more” under Step 2B and further argues reasons similar to those presented in Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In the instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B. In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Applicant argues that claim 1 uses the data to determine when a user wished to contact a mobile transaction without specifically prompting the user for additional information. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., being performed without specifically prompting the user for additional information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible for reasons similar to DDR Holdings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR Holdings the case was eligible due to the unique problem introduced by integration of the abstract idea into the realm of computer implementation. The instant application has no such problem being created by implementation of the abstract idea onto a computer system and thus are mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Applicant’s claims do not present the same issue present in DDR.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, “predicting based on the identifying of the communications habit, on the determining…” should be “predicting based on the identifying of the communications habit, on a result of the determining…” to maintain consistency.
In Claim 9, “wherein the first image data tracks of a lip movement” should be “wherein the first image data tracks
In Claim 15, “matching first information that contains captured by a peripheral component” should be “matching first information .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system, method, and computer-readable tangible storage device for automatic payment determination. It is noted that applicant has defined “computer-readable storage medium” to specifically exclude transitory signals in their specification (paragraph [0050]) which Examiner is understanding to extend to their “computer-readable tangible storage device” as per paragraph [0050]. These are a machine, process, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar (or broader) versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
“analyzing a speech or a text transmitted by a plurality of communications on the one or more communication applications, wherein the analyzing comprises identifying,…, one or more communication habits between the user and one or more other users;”
“identifying,…, a first geographical location of the user;”
“identifying,… , one or more second geographical locations of the one or more other users:”
“comparing the first geographical location with the one or more second geographical locations:”
“determining, based on the analyzing and based on a result of the comparing indicating that the first geographical location is within a threshold distance of the one or more second geographical locations, and further based on a result of the matching indicating that the first image data is within a first threshold similarity of the second image data or that the first sound data is within a second threshold similarity of the second sound data, that a communication of the plurality of communications corresponds to a payment request from the user to the one or more other users;”
“in response to the determining that the communication corresponds to the payment request, automatically identifying the one or more other users associated with the payment request without prompting the user for information;”
“in response to the automatically identifying the one or more other users associated with the payment request,…the first selectable element, when selected via the provided user interface, causes an approval of the payment request.”
Claim 1:
“matching at least one of: the first image data with the second image data or the first sound data with the second sound data;”
Claim 8:
“comparing at least one of: first image data captured by a camera of the mobile device with second image data captured by one or more cameras of the one or more user devices of the one or more other users; or first sound data captured by a microphone of the mobile device with second sound data captured by one or more microphones of the one or more other user devices;”
Claim 15:
“matching first information that contains captured by a peripheral component of the first mobile device with the second information captured by a peripheral component of the one or more second mobile devices, wherein the first information and the second information each comprises a respective visual component or a respective audio component;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “mobile device”, “one or more computer-readable memories storing program instructions;”, or “one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising”, nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when determining a payment request and performing said payment request. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“one or more computer-readable memories storing program instructions;”
“one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising:”
“accessing at least one of: first image data captured by a camera of the mobile device or first sound data captured by a microphone of the mobile device in real time;”
“accessing at least one of: second image data captured by one or more cameras of the user devices of the one or more other users or second sound data captured by one or more microphones of the user devices of the one or more other users in real time;
Claim 15:
“one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices, the program instructions when executed cause a machine to perform operations comprising:”
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
“monitoring one or more communication applications on a mobile device of a user;”
“…at least in part using natural language processing…”
“…at least in part via a first global positioning system (GPS) component of the mobile device of the user…”
“…at least in part via one or more GPS components of user devices of the one or more other users…”
“…generating and providing, via the one or more communication applications, a user interface, the user interface including information corresponding to the automatically identified one or more other users and a first selectable element,…”
The computer components (memories, processors, storage device, and mobile devices) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic devices, and generic storages) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The monitoring step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally monitoring) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of natural language processing, GPS, a camera, and a microphone are implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for monitoring various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite processes similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 further recite peripherals for collecting image, video, or audio data. The use of image, video, or audio peripherals is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cozens et al. (US 8,700,526 B1) discloses identifying payment recipients within a geographic range for a payment request.
Smith et al. (US 11,157,906 B1) discloses using natural language processing data with GPS data to determine user mental impairment and managing transactions based on said data.
Song (KR 20070109378 A) discloses using lips for a liveliness check for transaction authentication using camera devices.
김민성 (KR 20150015545 A) discloses GPS location based payments.
Authors et al. (“Authorizing a Payment Using Gesture Data”) discloses detection of payment requests using gesture data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691