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 .
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 21-29 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 21, or 31 or 38 recite(s) the series of steps of receiving transaction information including payment vehicle information for a plurality of transactions over a pre-determined time period from operated by one of the plurality of submerchants; tokenizing the transaction information for the plurality of transactions using a format-preserving tokenization scheme matching a format of the payment vehicle information, by encrypting the payment vehicle information within the received transaction information to generate tokenized transaction information that matches the format expected by; generating a request to register the tokenized transaction information, such that subsequent submissions of transaction information including the payment vehicle return the tokenized transaction information for any one of the plurality of submerchants; storing, the tokenized transaction information in a transaction database associated with; receiving, identifying information of to register; registering, upon verification of the identifying information, wherein registering enables to analyze the tokenized transaction information stored the transaction database by associating and the plurality of submerchants; receiving, a command from a payment facilitator to register of the plurality of submerchants; analyzing the transaction information stored in the transaction database to generate predictive analytics data relating to transaction patterns of the plurality of submerchants for presentation in, the predictive analytics including applying an internet protocol (IP) velocity filter algorithm for determining whether transactions from a same IP address have exceeded a threshold number of transactions within the pre-determined time period; and determining to decline one or more of the plurality of transactions upon determining the transaction patterns demonstrate transactions from the same IP address exceeding the threshold number of transactions within the pre-determined time period. These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 1, claims 21, 31, and 38 are directed to at least one statutory category, a method, a system, and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 21 (representative) is directed to an abstract idea of receiving transaction information including payment vehicle information for a plurality of transactions over a pre-determined time period from operated by one of the plurality of submerchants; tokenizing the transaction information for the plurality of transactions using a format-preserving tokenization scheme matching a format of the payment vehicle information, by encrypting the payment vehicle information within the received transaction information to generate tokenized transaction information that matches the format expected by; generating a request to register the tokenized transaction information, such that subsequent submissions of transaction information including the payment vehicle return the tokenized transaction information for any one of the plurality of submerchants; storing, the tokenized transaction information in a transaction database associated with; receiving, identifying information of to register; registering, upon verification of the identifying information, wherein registering enables to analyze the tokenized transaction information stored the transaction database by associating and the plurality of submerchants; receiving, a command from a payment facilitator to register of the plurality of submerchants; analyzing the transaction information stored in the transaction database to generate predictive analytics data relating to transaction patterns of the plurality of submerchants for presentation in, the predictive analytics including applying an internet protocol (IP) velocity filter algorithm for determining whether transactions from a same IP address have exceeded a threshold number of transactions within the pre-determined time period; and determining to decline one or more of the plurality of transactions upon determining the transaction patterns demonstrate transactions from the same IP address exceeding the threshold number of transactions within the pre-determined time period falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 21 include: by one or more processors of the payment facilitator system, by the one or more processors of the payment facilitator system, the payment facilitator system, the one or more processors of the payment facilitator system, a point-of-sale (POS) device, the POS device, a contactless reader, payment facilitator system; the payment facilitator system; the payment facilitator system; by the one or more processors; by the one or more processors of the payment facilitator system, automatically; via a user interface of the payment facilitator system; the devices. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed method/system/non-transitory computer readable medium.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0024]. Applicant’s specification [0024] states that “a computing system, device, server, or brick-and- mortar shop may include, for example, a point-of-sale (POS) system 106C, one or more processors 106D (e.g., of a computing system or server being used), a network interface 106E, a memory or other storage device(s) or tool(s) to record transaction information (e.g., memory 106F), one or more accounts of the submerchant (e.g., a submerchant account 106G), and user interface 106H. The POS device 106C may be, for example, a computer, mobile POS device, card reader, and/or a mobile phone.” The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, even in combination the claims are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 31 and 38 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 21, 31, and 38 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 22-29, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 21. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 32-37, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 31. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 39-40, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 38. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that the newly amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea certain method of organizing human activity and are in fact additional elements that illustrate integration into the practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of receiving transaction information including payment vehicle information for a plurality of transactions over a pre-determined time period from operated by one of the plurality of submerchants; tokenizing the transaction information for the plurality of transactions using a format-preserving tokenization scheme matching a format of the payment vehicle information, by encrypting the payment vehicle information within the received transaction information to generate tokenized transaction information that matches the format expected by; generating a request to register the tokenized transaction information, such that subsequent submissions of transaction information including the payment vehicle return the tokenized transaction information for any one of the plurality of submerchants; storing, the tokenized transaction information in a transaction database associated with; receiving, identifying information of to register; registering, upon verification of the identifying information, wherein registering enables to analyze the tokenized transaction information stored the transaction database by associating and the plurality of submerchants; receiving, a command from a payment facilitator to register of the plurality of submerchants; analyzing the transaction information stored in the transaction database to generate predictive analytics data relating to transaction patterns of the plurality of submerchants for presentation in, the predictive analytics including applying an internet protocol (IP) velocity filter algorithm for determining whether transactions from a same IP address have exceeded a threshold number of transactions within the pre-determined time period; and determining to decline one or more of the plurality of transactions upon determining the transaction patterns demonstrate transactions from the same IP address exceeding the threshold number of transactions within the pre-determined time period falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. The claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0024]. Applicant’s specification [0024] states that “a computing system, device, server, or brick-and- mortar shop may include, for example, a point-of-sale (POS) system 106C, one or more processors 106D (e.g., of a computing system or server being used), a network interface 106E, a memory or other storage device(s) or tool(s) to record transaction information (e.g., memory 106F), one or more accounts of the submerchant (e.g., a submerchant account 106G), and user interface 106H. The POS device 106C may be, for example, a computer, mobile POS device, card reader, and/or a mobile phone.” The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, even in combination the claims are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to argument’s argument that the tokenizing...the transaction information for the plurality of transaction using a format-preserving tokenization scheme..." is a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims recite the limitation of using processor, processors and computer, such limitations are not meaningful as most practical applications of such a database would involve a computer. “In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695