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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on November 11, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed November 11, 2025, page 12, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim amendments raise further 112 issues which render the scope of the claims to be unclear/lacks support with regard to the Specification. As a result, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are still not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, assuming the Specification provided adequate support for the claimed scope, such claimed scope would still amount to an abstract idea of merely generate customer data to initiate or carry out a transaction based on the generated data without significantly more. The abstract idea falls under mental processes and further under certain methods of organizing human activity. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 claims fail to include additional elements that amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. As a result, the rejection is maintained.
Title of the Invention Not Descriptive
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Per claims 9, 16 the claims recite: “receive transaction feedback data… and provide transaction feedback data…” emphasis added. It is not known whether the provided transaction feedback data is the same as the received transaction feedback data or whether it is different.
Per claim 1, 8 and 15, the claims are directed to a single entity, a device, and what that entity does. However, the claims include intended use, i.e. “to generate a token,” and include multiple outside the scope limitations that have no patentable weight because they are carried out by entities other than the claimed entity; the device. Such limitations that are outside the scope of the claims include “wherein the selected product system is hosted on a first server and communicates via a first communication channel” and “wherein the second product system is hosted on a second server and communicates via a second communication channel separate from the first communication channel.” The claims must capture only what the device does as all other limitations are not given any patentable weight. Applicant is advised to remove intended use language and replace it with positively recited limitations. Applicant is advised to recite a system comprising multiple entities and capturing what each entity does and how it does it. Lastly, the claims contain mere duplication of parts; second portion of the intendent claims starting with “receiving transaction data including updated dynamic customer data…” Such duplication of parts does not aid in overcome at least the 101 rejection and would be deemed obvious under 102/103 if the claims were rejected under prior art.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite that all the limitations are carried out by a single entity; a device. However, the Specification does not provide support for a single device performing every single limitation of the claims. The Specification provides support for different embodiments, which are carried out by several entities. The different embodiments are captured in the claims, but they are not supported by the Specification as being carried out by a single device. The Specification, Figures 15, 20, and 23 and related text, clearly provide such embodiments that are carried out by an MPP server, a user device, a merchant/POS, and a system 2300. The Specification also fails to provide any support for the various devices being included in one another, for instance, the MPP server including the merchant/POS, the system 2300.
Claim 1 for instance is found to include a receiving of request data, which is found in the Specification to be done by the MPP server or “authentication system 2300.” The validation of the request data is found in the Specification as being done by Controller 2332 & 2334 which are part of System 2300. Token generation is also found to be done by System 2300 and sent to MPP server to store the token for later use. The one-time link is also found to be generated by the System 2300 and sent to MPP server or client device. The customer device validation is not done by System 2300 or MPP server; the Specification validates the one-time link and uses the generated token to settle the transaction. Device validation is different, Figure 22 and related text in the Specification, disclose such validation but not in light of a one-time code and token! The limitations recited after the “validating a customer device using the unique one-time link…” are found to be carried out by a different device; see Figures 15 and 20 and related text. No link of Figures 15 and 20 is made to System 2300 as carrying out the functions. It’s also not clear whether the MPP server carries out all of the limitations after “validating a customer device using the unique one-time link…” As a result, the claims are rejected because no support is found for a single device carrying out the claim limitations, nor is there support for some of the claim limitations as being carried out in the manner as recited. For example, “validating the request data using a validation service to generate a token; transmitting a unique one-time link; validating a customer device using the unique one-time link and the token, wherein validation of the unique one-time link results in the token also being validated, wherein validation of the token results in the token not being usable in a future transaction, and wherein the unique one-time link enables additional privacy and security; in response to the validation, processing a set of system rules and the dynamic customer data through a machine learning model to select a product system…”
Applicant may amend the claims to include which entity carries out each claim limitation and, in the device, and CRM claims to add the additional entities that carry out the claim limitations. The Specification provides generalized high-level support for the various concepts in the claims but fails to provide in-depth support for the concepts as being ALL carried out by a single entity. Finally, the Specification fails to provide a clear link between which entity does what and how it does it.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a merchant system” in the processing limitation and the last limitation. It is not clear whether the merchant systems are the same or different, lack of antecedent basis for the second recited merchant system. Claim 2 recites “the merchant system,” and it is not clear whether it refers to the first merchant system in claim 1 or the second merchant system in claim 1. Amending claim 1, last limitation, to recite “the merchant system,” would overcome the rejection.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of settling a transaction using continuously generated customer compatible data without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claims capture commercial interactions including sales activities, and business relations. The claims capture a scope directed to providing users with proposed purchase products based on rules, a learning model, and settling a transaction for a product or products. Therefore, the claimed scope is clearly linked to the abstract idea category and sub-categories identified above.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A… method comprising:
receiving request data at a… [entity] associated with a plurality of product systems, wherein the request data includes dynamic customer data customized based on user selections;
validating the request data using a validation service to generate a token;
transmitting a unique one-time link;
validating… [second entity] using the unique one-time link and the token, wherein validation of the unique one-time link results in the token also being validated, wherein validation of the token results in the token not being usable in a future transaction, and wherein the unique one-time link enables additional privacy and security;
in response to the validation, processing a set of system rules and the dynamic customer data through a machine learning model to select a product system from the plurality of product systems, wherein the selected product system is hosted on a first server and communicates via a first communication channel;
receiving product data from the product system;
modifying the product data using the set of system rules and the dynamic customer data to generate customer compatible data;
initiating a transaction between… [the second entity and a third entity] using the customer compatible data;
in response to receiving transaction data that includes updated dynamic customer data, generating a new set of rules by updating the machine learning model using the updated dynamic customer data, thereby improving selection of product systems;
selecting, using the updated machine learning model, a second product system from the plurality of product systems, wherein the second product system is hosted on a second server and communicates via a second communication channel separate from the first communication channel;
receiving second additional product data from the second product system, wherein the second product data is associated with a data structure incompatible with the second product system and the customer device;
generating second customer compatible data by processing the second product data using the set of system rules and dynamic customer data; and
initiating a second transaction between… [the second entity and a fourth entity] using the second customer compatible data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a device associated with a plurality of product systems, a customer device, a merchant system, one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, analyzing or manipulating data, and outputting a result to initiate an action. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 6 and 7 for instance include additional elements such as presentation of an offer responsive to generating a resource request waterfall. Such additional elements are merely instructions executable by any generic device. Claim 7 recites updating a machine learning algorithm. Again, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, performing basic computer functions of analyzing data and manipulating data. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
References
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0351285 to Zeringue, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0206322 to Tomich teach the majority of the Applicant’s claimed scope. Since the claims contain various scope issues, the rejection of the claims is not deemed appropriate. Other references are considered, including foreign and non-patent literature, yet the references are not found to clearly capture all of the claim limitations as a whole in an obvious manner. As a result, the claims overcome the art rejection at this point in prosecution.
The following additional references were deemed critically analogous to Applicant’s Disclosure:
PGPUB 2015/0193873 to Hammock et al. Hammock teaches the majority of what Applicant deems as their invention. Proposal of payment options at a point of sale is well settled in the art. Such proposals offer a user the ability to settle a transaction that otherwise would be declined do to insufficient funds.
U.S. Patent 7,797,231 to Loeb et al. teaches various embodiments of what Applicant deems as their invention. Methods and systems are provided for offering loans to users at a point-of-purchase transaction. Such loans are typically offered upon the decline of a user-tendered payment, for example of a credit or debit card or check, and typically at a retail physical location point of sale and/or at a retail website point of sale. The loan offer process is desirably integrated with the merchant's payment processing system. Term sets can be pre-established between the merchant and the loan offerer. Processing to determine whether to offer a loan and under which set of terms is desirably automated such that the decision can be made in substantially real time to motivate the completion of what might constitute an otherwise failed transaction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699