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 Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration filed 01/16/2026.
The effective filing date of the present application is 04/19/2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's remarks of 01/16/2026 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards systems and a method. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method of searching through customer messages to find content of transactions that may contain information relevant to a customer-initiated dispute of a transaction. Relevant information includes dates, vendor, and merchant data. This is descriptive of a business relation among a customer and the payment card issuer because the customer used the payment card to conduct a transaction – or – is disputing a transaction that may have been put on the card. Business relations describe commercial interactions, which is a certain method of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 18, contains those elements that define these abstract ideas (and are highlighted below):
A method performed by a processor of a computing device, wherein the computing device runs an agent support application including a scanner, a parser and rules logic, the scanner scans content of customer messages, the parser parses the scanned content into tokens and the rules logic applies rules relating the parsed tokens to determine whether a message is relevant or not to a disputed payment card transaction, the method comprising:
receiving a communication of an indication of a transaction dispute from a customer of a payment card transaction;
responsive to the receiving, executing a web browser extension that generates a remote access session to remotely access a customer device associated with the customer, the customer device including messages received by the customer of the payment card transaction;
scanning using the scanner the customer device to identify a set of messages in the remotely accessed customer device to be searched among the messages received by the customer in a date range, the date range being based at least in part on a date of a payment card transaction of the customer that is in dispute;
parsing using the parser each message of the messages in the customer device, to transform content of the message into a plurality of tokens, each of the plurality of tokens comprising a subset of characters from the content of the message, wherein the parser contains knowledge of a grammar and how to chop the message into tokens based on the grammar;
searching using the rules logic with the processor, via processing the plurality of tokens, for a message that contains a receipt relating to the payment card transaction in the remotely accessed messages received by the customer; and
responsive to finding a selected message that contains the receipt relating to the payment card transaction in the remotely accessed messages received by the customer, notifying the customer of the selected message by sending a notification to the customer to avoid an unnecessary fraud dispute.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP § 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 10, and 18, recite only the following additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing programming instructions for execution by a processor;
a computing device, wherein the computing device runs an agent support application including a scanner, a parser and rules logic, the scanner scans content of customer messages, the parser parses the scanned content into tokens and the rules logic applies rules relating the parsed tokens;
a web browser extension that generates a remote access session.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0026 – 0031] of published application and Figures 1 - 3B, as filed. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer, (“…a smart phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a smartwatch or other type of computing device”), is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See [0027] of published application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing programming instructions for execution by a processor; a computing device, wherein the computing device runs an agent support application including a scanner, a parser and rules logic, a web browser extension that generates a remote access session), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 4 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. References to permission of the customer and notifying the customer, are further recitations to the business relation between the customer and the payment card issuer. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted above; (web browser extension). This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 5 – 9 and 11 – 13 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 10. References to scanning messages, (emails), vendor names, completed transactions and amounts, and shipments, are further recitations to the business relation between the customer and a payment card issuer. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted above. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 14 – 17 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 10. References to a customer email inbox, timestamp, and reference in a message, are directed to the customer’s relationship with the payment card issuer. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 19 and 20 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claim 18. References to a web browser and extension as well as open authorization amounts to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea identified on a computer. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s first argument discusses rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, beginning on page 8. Applicant maintains that the claimed invention “…provides a specific technical improvement in the field of remote data processing and message analysis.” Applicant adds that the “…agent support application architecture implements a non-conventional method for selectively filtering and transforming remote device data into actionable legal evidence for dispute resolution.” See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments center on a specifically configured parser with “knowledge of grammar”. This argument is not persuasive. As detailed above and throughout prosecution, certain additional elements were identified, these include: an agent support application including a scanner, a parser and rules logic, the scanner scans content of customer messages, the parser parses the scanned content into tokens and the rules logic applies rules relating the parsed tokens. Details within the disclosure for this device, as noted by Applicant within [0034], include: “This agent support application 310 may include instructions for providing support for the agent, whether the agent is a human agent 120 or the programmable intelligent agent 306 than runs on the one or more processors 302. … The agent support application 310 also may include a parser 334 for parsing the scanned content into tokens…” Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this component is as best, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). According to MPEP § 2106.05(f), this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology. Applicant’s argument regarding a specifically configured parser is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that this specialized transformation of grammar is a technical solution to the problem of “programmatically identifying transaction relevance within high-volume, unstructured personal communications.” See page 9. The Examiner respectfully finds this argument not persuasive. First, Applicant has disclosed a certain problem with transactions to be that customers often do not remember transactions that the authorized. This is not a technical problem, it is a problem rooted in the abstract concept of the business relation described by these commercial interactions. Thus, the problem identified is within certain methods of organizing human activity, and is directed to an abstract idea. Second, no technical problem has been identified within grammar rules, tokenization, or subset characterization, that this parser is solving. Further, the claimed parsing does not recite any steps or components that would provide a solution; they merely recite parse a message into tokens, based on grammar. Because this ordinary parser is instructed to perform common tasks, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Applicant next argues the claimed invention improved the efficiency of remote access session by implementing a date range. See page 9. This argument is not persuasive. To review a commercial interaction based on a date range is conducting an abstract idea by directing the efforts toward that abstract idea. A date range is a primary element that makes up a transaction. Searching or focusing on a date amounts to directing efforts to find information implicit to a transaction, and therefore, a basis of the commercial interaction. Because this element is directed to the abstract idea, it cannot be considered an additional element that might provide for integration into a practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s comment on page 9:
“If a combination of elements is sufficiently non-conventional to be patentable over the prior art under § 103, it cannot simultaneously be "well-understood, routine, and conventional" in the same field for the purposes of a § 101 Step 2B analysis.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. As identified above, the Examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea: (A method performed by a processor of a computing device, wherein the computing device runs an agent support application including a scanner, a parser and rules logic, the scanner scans content of customer messages, the parser parses the scanned content into tokens and the rules logic applies rules relating the parsed tokens to determine whether a message is relevant or not to a disputed payment card transaction, the method comprising:
receiving a communication of an indication of a transaction dispute from a customer of a payment card transaction;
responsive to the receiving, executing a web browser extension that generates a remote access session to remotely access a customer device associated with the customer, the customer device including messages received by the customer of the payment card transaction;
scanning using the scanner the customer device to identify a set of messages in the remotely accessed customer device to be searched among the messages received by the customer in a date range, the date range being based at least in part on a date of a payment card transaction of the customer that is in dispute;
parsing using the parser each message of the messages in the customer device, to transform content of the message into a plurality of tokens, each of the plurality of tokens comprising a subset of characters from the content of the message, wherein the parser contains knowledge of a grammar and how to chop the message into tokens based on the grammar;
searching using the rules logic with the processor, via processing the plurality of tokens, for a message that contains a receipt relating to the payment card transaction in the remotely accessed messages received by the customer; and
responsive to finding a selected message that contains the receipt relating to the payment card transaction in the remotely accessed messages received by the customer, notifying the customer of the selected message by sending a notification to the customer to avoid an unnecessary fraud dispute.)
The parser, scanner, computer, processor, etc., are considered additional elements, which are merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). It is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a network-enabled computing system, (a method performed by a processor of a computing device).
Further, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973. As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629