DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in the application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1, authorizing transactions, comprising: at least one processing; and at least one storage comprising instructions that when executed cause the at least one processing to perform a method comprising: receiving a pre-authorization request that identifies a pre-authorized payment method and a location of a second that generated the pre-authorization request for a transaction; receiving a transaction request from a first, the transaction request identifying a merchant location, a requested payment method, and a transaction amount; determining based on comparing the requested payment method and the pre-authorized payment method, that the transaction request is associated with the pre-authorization request; determining, via a global positioning, that the merchant location is within the threshold distance of the location of the second; and in response to determining that the transaction request is associated with the pre-authorization request and determining that the merchant location is within the threshold distance of the location of the second, processing the transaction request for the transaction without a fraud detection performing one or more validity checks that are required without pre-authorization. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2, claim 1, wherein receiving the transaction request comprises receiving the transaction request from the first associated with a merchant. Claim 3 -: 3, claim 1, wherein the pre-authorization request further identifies a pre-authorized location. Claim 4 -: 4, claim 3, wherein the method performed by the at least one processing further comprises: receiving, from the second, location data indicative of the location of the second, wherein the second is associated with a user; and determining, via a global positioning, that the location of the second is within a threshold distance of the pre-authorized location. Claim 5 -: 5, claim 3, wherein the pre-authorized location is associated with the merchant location. Claim 6 -: 6, claim 1, wherein the pre-authorization request further identifies a pre-authorized validity period. Claim 7 -: 7, claim 6, wherein the method performed by the at least one processing further comprises: receiving, from the second, a time associated with the transaction request, the time comprising a date; determining whether the date is within the pre-authorized validity period; and processing the transaction request when the date is within the pre-authorized validity period. Claim 8 -: 8, claim 1, wherein processing the transaction request comprises transmitting an indication that the transaction request is approved to a financial service provider associated with the requested payment method. Claim 9 -: 9, claim 1, wherein the pre-authorized payment method is selected by a user via a mobile wallet on the second. Claim 10 -: 10, claim 1, wherein the method... [id. at 4], determining that the transaction request does not match the pre-authorization request; and processing the transaction request when a fraud score associated with the transaction request is less than a threshold. (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 11 -: 11, a -implemented method for authorizing a transaction, comprising: receiving a pre-authorization... [id. at 1], receiving a transaction request for the transaction from a first, the transaction request comprising a merchant location, a requested payment method, and a transaction amount; determining based... [id. at 1], determining, via a global positioning, that the merchant location is within a threshold distance of the location of the second; and in response to determining that the transaction request is associated with the pre-authorization request and determining that the merchant location is within the threshold distance of the location of the second, processing the transaction request for the transaction. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 12 -: 12, the implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving, from the second, location data indicative of the location of the second, wherein the second is associated with a user, wherein the pre-authorization request further identifies a pre-authorized location; and determining, via a global positioning, that the location of the second is within a threshold distance of a pre-authorized location identified by the pre-authorization request. Claim 13 -: 13, the implemented method of claim 11, wherein the transaction request further identifies at least one of a geographic location, a validity period, or an indication of a merchant. Claim 14 -: 14, the implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether the transaction is within a percentage of a pre-authorized amount. Claim 15 -: 15, the implemented method of claim 14, wherein the percentage is associated with an estimated tax on the pre-authorized amount. Claim 16 -: 16, the implemented method of claim 15, wherein the percentage is pre-configured by a user associated with the pre-authorization request. Claim 17 -: 17, the implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: determining, based on a balance associated with the requested payment method, whether processing the transaction request will cause the balance to exceed a credit limit associated with the requested payment method; and processing the transaction request when the credit limit is not exceeded. Claim 18 -: 18, the implemented method of claim 11, wherein the pre-authorized... [id. at 9], Claim 19 -: 19, the implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: determining that... processing the... [id. at 10], (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 20 -: 20, a non-transitory readable comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more, cause operations for authorizing a transaction, comprising: receiving a pre-authorization request that identifies a pre-authorized payment method and a location of a second; receiving a transaction request for a transaction from a first, the transaction request identifying a merchant location, a requested payment method, and a transaction amount; determining, based on comparing the requested payment method and the pre-authorized payment method, that the transaction request is associated with the pre-authorization request, and a threshold; determining, via a global positioning, that the merchant location is within a threshold distance of the location associated with a user of the second that generated the pre-authorization request for the transaction; and in response to... [id. at 11], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: systems and methods for transaction pre-authentication as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as 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 – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Mathematical concepts – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as mathematical relationships, Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 11 and is described by the steps of independent claim 20.
Claim 1 (as amended): Particularly regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 1 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "device", "medium", "network", and "global positioning system". However, independent claim 1 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "device", "medium", "network", and "global positioning system" of independent claim 1 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a system for authorizing transactions, comprising", "at least one processing device; and", "at least one storage medium … perform a method comprising", "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", "determining based on comparing the … with the pre-authorization request", "determining, via a global positioning … the second device; and" and "in response to determining that … are required without pre-authorization") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the "at least one processing device; and", "at least one storage medium … perform a method comprising", "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", "determining based on comparing the … with the pre-authorization request", "determining, via a global positioning … the second device; and", "in response to determining that … are required without pre-authorization" step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "at least one storage medium … perform a method comprising", "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "at least one storage medium … perform a method comprising", "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 11 (as amended): Particularly regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 11 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer", "network", "device", and "global positioning system". However, independent claim 11 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer", "network", "device", and "global positioning system" of independent claim 11 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer-implemented method for authorizing a transaction, comprising", "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", "determining based on comparing the … with the pre-authorization request", "determining, via a global positioning … the second device; and" and "in response to determining that … request for the transaction") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", "determining based on comparing the … with the pre-authorization request", "determining, via a global positioning … the second device; and", "in response to determining that … request for the transaction" step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "receiving, via a network, a … request for a transaction", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, and electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 11 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 20 (as amended): Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 20 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer", "medium", "system", "processors", "network", "device", and "global positioning system". However, independent claim 20 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer", "medium", "system", "processors", "network", "device", and "global positioning system" of independent claim 20 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a non-transitory computer-readable medium system … authorizing a transaction, comprising", "receiving, via a network, a … of a second device", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", "determining, based on comparing the … request, and a threshold", "determining, via a global positioning … for the transaction; and" and "in response to determining that … request for the transaction") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the "receiving, via a network, a … of a second device", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", "determining, based on comparing the … request, and a threshold", "determining, via a global positioning … for the transaction; and", "in response to determining that … request for the transaction" step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "receiving, via a network, a … of a second device", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 11 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "receiving, via a network, a … of a second device", "receiving, via the network, a … and a transaction amount", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 11 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 20 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1, 11, and 20 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7: Dependent claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "timestamp" of dependent claim 7 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 18: Dependent claims 9 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "mobile wallet application" of dependent claims 9 and 18 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2: Dependent claim 2 adds an additional method step of "wherein receiving the transaction request comprises receiving the transaction request from the first device associated with a merchant". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 2 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3: Dependent claim 3 adds an additional method step of "wherein the pre-authorization request further identifies a pre-authorized location". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 3 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4: Dependent claim 4 adds an additional method step of "wherein the method performed by the at least one processing device further comprises", "receiving, from the second device, location data indicative of the location of the … device, wherein the second device is associated with a user; and", "determining, via a global positioning system, that the location of the second device is within a threshold distance of the pre-authorized location". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 4 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds an additional method step of "wherein the pre-authorized location is associated with the merchant location". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 5 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6: Dependent claim 6 adds an additional method step of "wherein the pre-authorization request further identifies a pre-authorized validity period". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 6 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7: Dependent claim 7 adds an additional method step of "receiving, from the second device, a timestamp associated with the transaction request, the timestamp comprising a date", "determining whether the date is within the pre-authorized validity period; and", "processing the transaction request when the date is within the pre-authorized validity period". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 7 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8: Dependent claim 8 adds an additional method step of "wherein processing the transaction request comprises transmitting an indication that the transaction request … to a financial service provider associated with the requested payment method". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 8 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 8 is ineligible.
Claims 9 and 18: Dependent claims 9 and 18 add an additional method step of "wherein the pre-authorized payment method is selected by a user via a mobile wallet application on the second device". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 9 and 18 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 7, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 9 and 18 are ineligible.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 adds an additional method step of "wherein the method performed by the at least one processing device further comprises", "determining that the transaction request does not match the pre-authorization request; and", "processing the transaction request when a fraud score associated with the transaction request is less than a threshold". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 10 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds an additional method step of "receiving, from the second device, location data indicative of the location of the … user, wherein the pre-authorization request further identifies a pre-authorized location; and", "determining, via a global positioning system, that the location of the second device … threshold distance of a pre-authorized location identified by the pre-authorization request". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 12 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13: Dependent claim 13 adds an additional method step of "wherein the transaction request further identifies at least one of a geographic location, a validity period, or an indication of a merchant". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 13 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14: Dependent claim 14 adds an additional method step of "determining whether the transaction is within a percentage of a pre-authorized amount". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 14 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15: Dependent claim 15 adds an additional method step of "wherein the percentage is associated with an estimated tax on the pre-authorized amount". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 15 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16: Dependent claim 16 adds an additional method step of "wherein the percentage is pre-configured by a user associated with the pre-authorization request". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 16 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17: Dependent claim 17 adds an additional method step of "determining, based on a balance associated with the requested payment method, whether processing … exceed a credit limit associated with the requested payment method; and", "processing the transaction request when the credit limit is not exceeded". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 17 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 19: Dependent claim 19 adds an additional method step of "determining that the transaction request does not match the pre-authorization request; and", "processing the transaction request when a fraud score associated with the transaction request is less than a threshold". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 19 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 19 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted October 9, 2025 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed July 14, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the July 14, 2025 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"Even assuming the claims can reasonably be determined to recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A, which Applicant does not concede is the case for this application, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
'[A]mended representative claim 1 as a whole integrates into a practical application because it is directed to improvements in the technical field of fraud detection by minimizing the amount of validity checks the fraud detection system performs for fraud requests. Paragraphs 75 of the specification state that "if card authorization system 116 determines that a received transaction is associated with a pre-authorization, card authorization system 116 sends an indication to fraud detection system 114 to perform fraud checks on the transaction. Fraud detection system 114 may perform a set of validity checks on transactions that are not associated with a pre-authorization, while fraud detection system 114 may perform only a subset of those validity checks on transactions that are associated with a pre-authorization." []. By performing only a subset of validity checks on transactions associated with a pre-authorization, the system reduces the number of requests sent to the fraud detection system. This reduction in requests decreases the processing operations/processor usage and network requests for the fraud detection system, thereby conserving computational resources and improving processing efficiency
'[T]he specification makes apparent a technical solution that improves upon fraud detection systems. [T]he claims themselves reflect the disclosed improvement. [R]epresentative claim 1, as amended, recites[] one or more processors to perform a method comprising "in response to determining that the transaction request matches is associated with the pre,-authorization request and determining that the merchant location is within the threshold distance of the location of the second device, processing the transaction request for the transaction without a fraud detection system performing one or more validity checks that are required without pre-authorization."
"[T]he above features of amended representative claim 1 provides an improvement to a technology or technical field and includes the previously identified exception integration from the parent. [T]he claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. -º 101. "
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 9-11).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments submitted October 9, 2025 at REMARKS pp. 9-11 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Materially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held that "communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network" is itself an abstract idea. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d at 108516: "It is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea--namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. [] We therefore continue our analysis to determine whether the focus of claim 1, as a whole, is the abstract idea. As explained below, we conclude that it is." ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 108512 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. i. Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20080228613 A1 by Alexander; Daniel discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF AND PAYMENT FOR ELECTRIC CHARGING OF VEHICLES.
USPGPub No. US 20100010930 A1 by Allen; Clinton R. et al. discloses PROVIDING A REAL TIME CREDIT SCORE AS PART OF A TRANSACTION REQUEST.
USPGPub No. US 20140337218 A1 by Anand; Ramalingam Krishnamurthi discloses FRAUD PREVENTION FOR TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20130030934 A1 by BAKSHI; Chirag C. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION APPROVAL BASED ON MOBILE SUBSCRIBER TERMINAL LOCATION.
USPGPub No. US 20130006860 A1 by Balasubramanian; Girish et al. discloses ANTICIPATORY PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION.
USPGPub No. US 20120036073 A1 by Basu; Gourab et al. discloses INTELLIGENT ESTIMATES IN AUTHORIZATION.
USPGPub No. US 20090177563 A1 by Bernstein; Kathi L. et al. discloses AUTHORIZATION REFRESH SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPAT No. US 9679305 B1 to Bhat; Rajiv et al. discloses Embedded storefront.
USPGPub No. US 20090271278 A1 by Bishop; Fred et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ROUTING A TRANSACTION REQUEST TO A PAYMENT SYSTEM VIA A TRANSACTION DEVICE.
USPGPub No. US 20090271277 A1 by Bishop; Fred et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRANSACTION PROCESSING BASED UPON AN OVERDRAFT SCENARIO.
USPGPub No. US 20090265250 A1 by Bishop; Fred et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING A TRANSACTION ACCORDING TO AN ALLOWANCE.
USPGPub No. US 20090265241 A1 by Bishop; Fred et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A REWARDS ACCOUNT TO FUND A TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20090171842 A1 by Blythe; Simon discloses Techniques For Conducting Financial Transactions Using Mobile Communication Devices.
USPGPub No. US 20190251590 A1 by Bodington; Shaun discloses Incentives Associated with Linked Financial Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20030229584 A1 by Brown, Kyle Ray discloses Method and system for discount debit card.
USPGPub No. US 20140195425 A1 by Campos; Tomas Ariel et al. discloses Systems And Methods For Proxy Card and/or Wallet Redemption Card Transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20080313047 A1 by Casares; Wenceslao et al. discloses Payment clearing network for electronic financial transactions and related personal financial transaction device.
USPGPub No. US 20150058220 A1 by Cazanas; Carlos A. et al. discloses PAYMENT PRE-AUTHORIZATION.
USPAT No. US 6434238 B1 to Chaum; David et al. discloses Multi-purpose transaction card system.
USPAT No. US 8805737 B1 to Chen; Kevin Chaowen et al. discloses Computer-implemented multiple entity dynamic summarization systems and methods.
USPGPub No. US 20070063017 A1 by Chen; Yaofei et al. discloses System and method for securely making payments and deposits.
USPGPub No. US 20100125470 A1 by Chisholm; John D. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING A DECISION MAKING PLATFORM.
USPGPub No. US 20150095215 A1 by Clarke; Trevor Fred Roy et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESCUING PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20100312657 A1 by Coulter; Todd R. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING A RULES MODULE TO PROCESS FINANCIAL TRANSACTION DATA.
USPAT No. US 9311638 B1 to Daniel; Isaac S. discloses Apparatus, system and method for pre-authorizing international use of a credit card using an electronic card case.
USPGPub No. US 20110196791 A1 by Dominguez; Benedicto Hernandez discloses FRAUD REDUCTION SYSTEM FOR TRANSACTIONS.
USPAT No. US 9652772 B1 to Eyges; Vitaly et al. discloses Systems and methods for fraud detection.
USPGPub No. US 20100280950 A1 by Faith; Patrick et al. discloses TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION USING TIME-DEPENDENT TRANSACTION PATTERNS.
USPGPub No. US 20050060584 A1 by Ginter, Karl L. et al. discloses Trusted infrastructure support systems, methods and techniques for secure electronic commerce, electronic transactions, commerce process control and automation, distributed computing, and rights management.
USPAT No. US 6658568 B1 to Ginter; Karl L. et al. discloses Trusted infrastructure support system, methods and techniques for secure electronic commerce transaction and rights management.
USPAT No. US 9641526 B1 to Gopalakrishnan; Varadarajan et al. discloses Location based authentication methods and systems.
USPGPub No. US 20140046737 A1 by Graves; Phillip et al. discloses S/M for Providing, Reloading, and Redeeming Stored Value Cards used in Transit Applications.
USPGPub No. US 20130046692 A1 by Grigg; David M. et al. discloses FRAUD PROTECTION WITH USER LOCATION VERIFICATION.
USPGPub No. US 20140046744 A1 by Hagey; Ryan discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO APPLY VALUES FROM STORED VALUE ACCOUNTS TO PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20120023567 A1 by Hammad; Ayman discloses TOKEN VALIDATION FOR ADVANCED AUTHORIZATION.
USPGPub No. US 20120330788 A1 by Hanson; Robert et al. discloses PAYMENT SELECTION AND AUTHORIZATION BY A MOBILE DEVICE.
USPGPub No. US 20090100168 A1 by Harris; Scott C. discloses AUTOMATIC LOCATION DETECTION IN A COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20070179865 A1 by Hibler; Kimberly et al. discloses METHOD FOR ANONYMOUS PURCHASE OF GOODS BY PROVIDING A PLUARLITY OF NON-ACTIVATED ACCOUNT NUMBERS.
USPGPub No. US 20150220920 A1 by HOWE; Justin X. discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OPTIMIZING FORCE POSTED PAYMENTS.
USPGPub No. US 20090070265 A1 by Hrabosky; Lisa discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CASHBACK FUNDING.
USPGPub No. US 20080126258 A1 by Jacobs; Paul E. et al. discloses AUTHENTICATION OF E-COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS USING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE.
USPGPub No. US 20140207673 A1 by Jeffries; Matt et al. discloses AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE TRANSACTION BLOCKING.
USPGPub No. US 20130253965 A1 by Joseph; Roshin discloses TIME DEPENDENT TRANSACTION QUEUE.
USPGPub No. US 20060131390 A1 by Kim; Mike Insang discloses Method and system for providing transaction notification and mobile reply authorization.
USPGPub No. US 20060131385 A1 by Kim; Mike Insang discloses Conditional transaction notification and implied approval system.
USPGPub No. US 20070246528 A1 by Kubo; Takayuki et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20120216244 A1 by KUMAR; Srinivas et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR APPLICATION ATTESTATION.
USPGPub No. US 20190266339 A1 by KURSUN; Eren discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA SHARING AND TRANSACTION PROCESSING FOR HIGH SECURITY DOCUMENTS.
USPGPub No. US 20030195859 A1 by Lawrence, Jason E. discloses System and methods for authenticating and monitoring transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20090164354 A1 by Ledbetter; Richard Howard et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONSUMER DRIVEN PROTECTION FOR PAYMENT CARD TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20100287099 A1 by Liu; Frederick et al. discloses RISK ASSESSMENT RULE SET APPLICATION FOR FRAUD PREVENTION.
USPGPub No. US 20130304637 A1 by McCabe; Colin T. et al. discloses FRAUD CONTROL INTEGRATED FORM FILLING TOOL.
USPGPub No. US 20150235220 A1 by Murphy, JR.; Matthew D. et al. discloses LOCATION BASED RISK MITIGATING TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION.
USPGPub No. US 20150235219 A1 by Murphy, JR.; Matthew D. et al. discloses ITEM/VALUE BASED RISK MITIGATING TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION.
USPGPub No. US 20150235207 A1 by Murphy, JR.; Matthew D. et al. discloses RISK MITIGATING TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION.
USPGPub No. US 20120041876 A1 by Nosek; Luke Paul et al. discloses INSTANT AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY TRANSFERRED FUNDS.
USPGPub No. US 20140101046 A1 by O'Connor; Michael D. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ONLINE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20150019435 A1 by Ovick; Joseph Bjorn et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO GENERATE A RECEIPT FOR A TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20100106611 A1 by Paulsen; Kobus et al. discloses FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20070250392 A1 by Paulsen; Kobus et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING TAXES OWED FOR FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED OVER A NETWORK.
USPGPub No. US 20100211503 A1 by Reiss; Zvi discloses Double Verified Transaction Device and Method.
USPGPub No. US 20140207674 A1 by SCHROEDER; Denise et al. discloses AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE TRANSACTION PREMIUM LISTING TO PREVENT TRANSACTION BLOCKING.
USPGPub No. US 20140316984 A1 by Schwartz; Robyn R. discloses MOBILE DEVICE TRANSACTION METHOD AND SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20140222616 A1 by SIEMIATKOWSKI; Sebastian et al. discloses System and Methods for Party Authentication and Credit Assessment in Electronic Purchasing.
USPGPub No. US 20140122331 A1 by Vaish; Tushar et al. discloses System and Method for Providing a Security Code.
USPGPub No. US 20130001304 A1 by Xu; Jinyao et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD OF IC CARD AND A MULTI-APPLICATION IC CARD AS WELL AS A PAYMENT TERMINAL.
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 SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Tuesday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 11/24/2025
Prosecution Insights