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 .
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 11/12/2025 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 12 NOVEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are pending in this instant application per remarks and claim amendments filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent claims reciting system, method and apparatus claims. Claims 3-10 and 12-19 are respective dependent claims. Claim amendments have amended all independent claims 1, 11 and 20.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection in response to claim amendments filed on 12 NOVEMBER 2025 for its original application of 22 JUNE 2022 that is titled: “Allocation of Split Tender Transactions”.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in the RCE on 11/12/2025 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1, 3-11 & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent payment system, method and apparatus claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 11: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method for automatic charge allocation, reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: retrieving a plurality of payment instruments associated with a customer account from a customer database, wherein the plurality of payment instruments includes payment instruments of two or more payment method types; retrieving eligibility rules associated with each of the plurality of payment instruments from a payment rules database storing eligibility rules associated with a plurality of payment methods; determining a charge allocation between the plurality of payment instruments based on the allocation order, the eligibility rules associated with each of the plurality of payment instruments, and characteristics of products in the list of products for purchase retrieved from a product database; and processing a transaction for the list of products using two or more of the plurality of payment instruments based on the charge allocation. These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: receiving, via a network interface coupled to the control circuit, a list of products for purchase using the digital wallet; [[]] determining, with the control circuit, an allocation order for the plurality of payment instruments in the digital wallet based at least on a machine learning algorithm trained on past customer purchase behaviors to determine the allocation order [[]]; and causing, via the network interface, the charge allocation to be displayed via a user payment user interface on the user device; and wherein determining the charge allocation comprises: for each product in the list of products for purchase, determine whether the product is eligible for payment by a first payment instrument according to the allocation order of the plurality of payment instruments based on the eligibility rules associated with the first payment instrument stored in the payment rules database and product information stored in the product database; and in the event that the product is not eligible for payment by the first payment instrument, determine whether the product is eligible for payment by a second payment instrument in the allocation order of the plurality of payment instruments based on the eligibility rules associated with the second payment instrument stored in the payment rules database and the product information. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The control circuit/s, user device/s and network interface/s in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: receiving, from a user device and via a network interface coupled to the control circuit, a list of products for purchase; and causing, via the network interface, the charge allocation to be displayed via a user payment user interface on the user device, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these circuits/ devices/ interfaces (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0037]--[0039] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe as follows ---
{“[0037] In some embodiments, a digital wallet may store information on retail store membership, insurance card, ID, eReceipts, and open orders (e.g. upcoming deliveries and pickup orders). The system may incorporate a variety of payment options such as Debit, Credit, Gift Card, EBT, SNAP, FSA, Directed Spend, and Stored Value in the allocation process. The wallet may further provide a retailer stored value account for instant refund, P2P transfers, and change roundup. In some embodiments, a digital wallet removes the need to carry a physical wallet and does not require a bank account https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/ banking-101/ with a physical firm or branch, allowing shoppers in underserved areas to enable a wider financial inclusion. ……………………………………………………………………………………
[0038] In some embodiments, the split payment between multiple payment methods may be based on the basket eligibility and a set of rules-driven allocation logic. The initial allocation logic may charge the most restrictive payment method first - while considering basket payment method eligibility. In some embodiments, smart allocation may include a learning model for providing allocation recommendations based on personalized customer transaction behavior. In some embodiments, automatic allocation suggestions may work in conjunction with preferences. In some embodiments, the system initially operates on a baseline set of fixed rules and the customers may opt-out of smart allocation or make changes to the default allocation. In some embodiments, the allocation recommendation is provided consistently across various checkout methods (e.g. in-store, online, mobile). In some embodiments, in case a particular tender is not supported by a particular checkout, the rules may be adjusted to not consider the payment method. The backend processes related to payment methods are associated with latency due to the service calls to get the balance (Gift Card and Directed Spends), invoke Promotion Engine to get the promotion eligibility for Directed Spends, etc. In some embodiments, the system includes default allocation rules for Directed Spends and other multiple tender types. …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0039] In some embodiments, the system allocates charges between multiple credit cards and maximizing points earned/card balances. In some embodiments, the system includes a machine learning algorithm for determining allocation based on customer preferences.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 1 and independent apparatus Claim 20, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 11. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 13-19, further narrow the independent method Claim 11 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., determine whether the product is eligible for payment by a first payment instrument; determine whether the product is eligible for payment by a second payment instrument; determining whether sufficient fund is present in the first payment instrument to pay for the product; determining whether the product is eligible for payment by the second payment instrument in the allocation order of the plurality of payment instruments; receiving a user selection of a subset of the plurality of payment instruments in response to displaying the charge allocation; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 11. Similarly, dependent system Claims 3-10 also further narrow their independent Claim 1, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis (as above).
Therefore, said Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 12 NOVEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not place the amended claims in condition for allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20, as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action, under 35 USC 101 in response to the Applicant’s latest claim amendments (of 11/12/2025). Also, Examiner notes that the latest claim amendments in the instant application are extra-solution activities, (as shown above in para 7.), and thus, are nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments traversing 35 USC 101 rejection by citing similarity to Example 47, Claim 3, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has stated --- {“In that example, the use of an artificial neural network (ANN) to detect malicious network packets was not merely an abstract idea, but a concrete technical solution that caused a network device to take specific system-level actions-dropping malicious packets and blocking future traffic-thereby improving network security.”}. Examiner notes that in eligibility analysis of Example 47, Claim 3 on the Office’s web site states ---
Step (a) recites "training ... the ANN based on input data ... to generate a trained ANN."
Step (b) recites "detecting one or more anomalies in network traffic using the trained ANN."
Step (c) recites "determining at least one detected anomaly is associated with one or more malicious network packets."
Step ( d) further recites "detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time."
The claimed steps of ( e ), automatically dropping the one or more malicious network packets, and (f), blocking future traffic from the source address, provide specific computer solutions that use the output from the ANN to provide security solutions to the detected anomalies.
Further analysis of Claim 3 in Example 47 on the Office’s web site states that ---
Step (a) provides use of specific mathematical calculations (a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm) to perform the training of the ANN and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts.
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (b) and ( c) is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps ( d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step ( d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step ( e ), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
In comparison, the Applicant has argued the instant application’s eligibility as --- {“Similarly, the present claims recite a control circuit configured to process a transaction using a digital wallet by allocating charges across multiple payment instruments based on a machine learning-derived allocation order. This final step "process(es) a transaction for the list of products with the digital wallet using two or more of the plurality of payment instruments based on the charge allocation" -- constitutes a concrete, system-level technical action. It results in a real-time, non-generic transformation of the financial system's state, enabling a multi-instrument transaction that enhances the efficiency and functionality of digital payment systems.”} Examiner respectfully disagrees The claims here do not recite an improvement in computers. The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, or solve any technological problem. Rather, the claim simply “includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” and “does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claim uses generic computer components and generic computer functionality to make payments. The claims merely use instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is also noted by Examiner that the additional elements in steps (d)/(e)/(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a). The claimed invention (in Example 47, Claim 3) reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101 (on pages 11-12 of 13), Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments of eligibility under Step 2B under the Alice/Mayo framework. In response, Examiner notes that although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility, and 11/12/2025 RCE claim amendments don’t provide an improvement of technology.
Furthermore, “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea “on …… a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).
“The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the §101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). Although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution, but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Examiner notes that the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related problem. The focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The claimed use of computer elements recited at a high level of generality is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these 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.
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency/accuracy inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691