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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending and are rejected.
Applicant respectfully submits the representative Claim 1 as amended does not recite any activities that fall within the enumerated sub-groupings. Specifically, claim 1 does not include any interactions either commercial or legal. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and also a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).
Here, the claimed concept falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, such as the category of functions of organizing human activities such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of :
managing, any future transaction for a non-conflicting first credit account and at least said second different credit account with said single ONE card account.
Therefore the claims recite an abstract concept.
The claims recite a “computer system” for evaluating, determining, and generating data which are not an improvement to the claimed computer system. Applicant is directed to e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of a generic computer device or system to manage a transaction.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a computer system) do not improve (1) the processor with memory, the mobile device or and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed artificial model, processor, user interface or mobile device are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-7 are directed to an abstract idea.
A 35 USC 101 rejection on the amended claims is found below.
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 1-2 and 4-7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with regard to claims 1-7, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and abstract idea in regular text:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for combining at least two similarly managed credit accounts into a single ONE card account, the method comprising:
identifying, at a computer system, plurality of different credit accounts associated with a cardholder;
evaluating said plurality of different credit accounts for a conflict of interest;
determining, based on said evaluating, that a first credit account and at least a second different credit account are non-conflicting;
generating, at the computer system, a single ONE card account for the cardholder;
combining, at the computer system, said non-conflicting first credit account and at least said second different credit account into the single ONE card account; and
managing, at said computer system, any future transaction for said non-conflicting first credit account and at least said second different credit account with said single ONE card account.
Claim 2 recites: wherein said plurality of different credit account are managed by a single entity.
Claim 4 recites: searching, at said computer system, at least one database containing a plurality of credit accounts for any credit accounts associated with said cardholder.
Claim 5 recites: searching, at said computer system, a digital wallet for any credit accounts associated with said cardholder.
Claim 6 recites: searching, at said computer system, any applications (apps) for any credit account associated with said cardholder.
Claim 7 recites: automatically providing said single one card account to a digital wallet of a mobile device.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to a method for combining two different credit accounts into a single card account. This type of method of organizing human activity is a commercial or legal interaction similar to sales activities or business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. For example, the computer system is being used as a tool to combine account information into a single card account. Moreover, with regard to claims 5-7, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., apps on a mobile device. Employing well known technology within a mobile device software environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson, W. can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
March 9, 2026