DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 17/804,087 (05/25/22) filed on 12/30/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “receiving, from said mobile device, said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information;”
This should be -- receiving, from said mobile device, said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification information including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; -- or something similar.
Missing word.
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.
Claims 1 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 9 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves utilizing to electronically transmit information when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry;
receiving said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms; transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process; and completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (providing payment scenarios); commercial or legal interactions (providing payment scenarios); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (utilizing ….. to electronically transmit; receiving; utilizing ….. to perform; generating; utilizing ….. to identify; utilizing ….. to customize; transmitting; providing, completing, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of a “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to utilizing to electronically transmit information when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms; transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process; and completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device”, the claim encompasses the user manually utilizing to electronically transmit information when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms; transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process; and completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario. NOTE: (a) The claim is silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts. The claim may not necessarily be describing what a machine itself is doing, but may interpreted more broadly. For example, how a machine (e.g., “a payment scenario information interactive beacon”) or data (e.g., “customer identification information”, “obtained customer behavior information”) may be used (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “utilizing ….. to perform”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”, etc.) as a tool of a human operator. See also, MPEP§ 2111 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. (b) The claim also references a “mobile device”. The claim is not from the perspective of the “mobile device” and the “mobile device” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “mobile device” is only nominally or tangentially related to the claimed invention as it interacts with the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and/ or another entity (unknown, unclaimed) performing positively steps or acts.
The mere nominal recitation of a “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” being utilized to electronically transmit “to a mobile device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of at least one “receiving” step being “from said mobile device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “transmitting” being “to said mobile device”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “receiving”; “transmitting”; “providing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “utilizing ….. to perform”; “generating”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”; “completing”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering payment scenario data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” are also recited at a high level of generality. At best, the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 05/25/22 does not provide any indication that the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Butvin, Kurani, Kim, Sulkowski and Zhao operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “receiving”; “transmitting”; “providing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “utilizing ….. to perform”; “generating”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”; “completing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “receiving”; “transmitting”; “providing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “utilizing ….. to perform”; “generating”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”; “completing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to processing of payments (e.g., providing payment scenarios).
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to providing payment scenarios. Providing payment scenarios, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit information ….. when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving ….. said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms; transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms …..; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process; and completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario.”).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen;” and “utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms;”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 9 recite a “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and a “mobile device”, nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
NOTE: (a) The claim is silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts. The claim may not necessarily be describing what a machine itself is doing, but may interpreted more broadly. For example, how a machine (e.g., “a payment scenario information interactive beacon”) or data (e.g., “customer identification information”, “obtained customer behavior information”) may be used (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “utilizing ….. to perform”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”, etc.) as a tool of a human operator. See also, MPEP§ 2111 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. (b) The claim also references a “mobile device”. The claim is not from the perspective of the “mobile device” and the “mobile device” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “mobile device” is only nominally or tangentially related to the claimed invention as it interacts with the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and/ or another entity (unknown, unclaimed) performing positively steps or acts. See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
NOTE: Contrary to applicant’s characterization, all elements of applicant’s claim have been considered. Most of applicant’s claimed invention is indicative of the abstract idea (i.e., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit information ….. when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving ….. said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms; transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms …..; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process; and completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario.”). The abstract idea was considered as part of PRONG 1. As noted on pg. 6 above, the combination of additional elements (i.e., “The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” being utilized to electronically transmit “to a mobile device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of at least one “receiving” step being “from said mobile device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “transmitting” being “to said mobile device.”) were considered as part of PRONG 2.
NOTE: Just to reiterate, the role of the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” were not considered as part of the PRONG 1 abstract idea analysis. The role of the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” were considered as additional elements under the PRONG 2 analysis. As discussed in further detail below, the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f). Furthermore, the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” are limited to insignificant extra-solution activity. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Contrary to applicant’s characterization, the newly recited language is not a positively recited step or act performed, “said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information”. It is directed exclusively to non-functional descriptive material (i.e., “customer identification information”). See also, MPEP §2111.05 (g). These features were considered as part of the PRONG 1 abstract idea analysis.
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (i.e., “Here, similar to DDR Holdings, the Claim includes the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modify conventional mobile device/beacon interactions to dynamically produce automated activities when the mobile device is within range of a specifically designated beacon which differ from the conventional customer interactions. Instead, the additional elements (which are not part of the abstract idea of commercial interactions) provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer (e.g., customer's mobile device) including the functionality of improving the verification and security of customer identification information. "That is, by including the additional features that improve the functioning of the computer, the Claim elements qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception." as described on pg. 23 - 24 applicant’s remarks as filed 12/30/25). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
Applicant’s alleged improvement does not improve upon the computer’s capabilities/ functionality or any other technology or technical field. The provision of choice with respect to payments/ plurality of payment scenarios is not a technology based “improvement” as applicant suggests, but instead is direct to the underlying abstract idea (i.e., providing payment scenarios) as noted above.
Furthermore, the claimed invention (a) describes the intended use of the machine(s) by a human operator; and/ or (b) are completely silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited step or act. Applicant’s arguments appear directed to the benefits of automation itself.
There is no explanation in in applicant’s specification as filed 5/25/25 as to how the claimed invention improves “verification and security”. Furthermore, “verification and security” are not necessarily a technology-based solutions. A human operator performing checks can perform these tasks manually.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or an equivalent of an “apply it” rationale are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f).
The role of the device is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “utilizing a payment scenario information interactive beacon to electronically transmit information to a mobile device when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving, from said mobile device, said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information;” and “transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms to said mobile device;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “utilizing a payment scenario information interactive beacon to electronically transmit information to a mobile device when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving, from said mobile device, said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information;” and “transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms to said mobile device; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process;”); analyzing it (e.g., “utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms;” and “completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario.”); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
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 also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
NOTE: Contrary to applicant’s characterization, all elements of applicant’s claim have been considered. Most of applicant’s claimed invention is indicative of the abstract idea (i.e., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit information ….. when said mobile device is within a transmission range, said information comprising: access information such that said mobile device can electronically initiate an inquiry; and a provision to automatically include customer identification information with said inquiry; receiving ….. said inquiry comprising said customer identification information, said customer identification including automatically generated location information selected from the group consisting of: Global Positioning Satellite based location information, WiFi based location information, Cellular based location information and beacon based location information; utilizing said customer identification information to perform a credit prescreen; generating, based on a result of said credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms, wherein said plurality of payment scenarios comprises at least one payment scenario related to said credit prescreen and at least one payment scenario unrelated to said credit prescreen; utilizing said customer identification information to identify a customer data file and obtain customer behavior information therefrom; utilizing said obtained customer behavior information to customize said plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms; transmitting said plurality of customized payment scenarios with associated terms …..; receiving a completed agreement for a selected payment scenario of said plurality of customized payment scenarios with said associated terms; providing said selected payment scenario during a checkout process; and completing a transaction with said selected payment scenario.”). The abstract idea was considered as part of PRONG 1. As noted on pg. 6 above, the combination of additional elements (i.e., “The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” being utilized to electronically transmit “to a mobile device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of at least one “receiving” step being “from said mobile device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “transmitting” being “to said mobile device.”) were considered as part of PRONG 2.
(3)Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 05/25/22 does not provide any indication that the “payment scenario information interactive beacon” and “mobile device” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Butvin, Kurani, Kim, Sulkowski and Zhao operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “receiving”; “transmitting”; “providing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “utilizing ….. to perform”; “generating”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”; “completing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “utilizing ….. to electronically transmit”; “receiving”; “transmitting”; “providing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “utilizing ….. to perform”; “generating”; “utilizing ….. to identify”; “utilizing ….. to customize”; “completing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
(4)Applicant argues DDR Holdings.
Applicant is arguing the efficiency of automating an otherwise manual process, basically an “apply it” argument. The claims provide no implementation details. The claims contain little more than a directive to “use the internet” to implement the abstract idea embraced by the claims. The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter “requires ‘more than simply stat [ing] the [abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). In contrast, the patent claims in DDR Holdings, as described by the Court, “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258.
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 SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695