Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 34-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, method and non-transient computer storage medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 34 or claim 44 is directed to an abstract idea of maintaining a plurality of user accounts and stored login credentials for accessing the user accounts; receiving, a user authorization to provide to account data associated with an account of the user; providing configured for the user to input, into the first webpage, login credentials for accessing the user account; authenticating the login credentials at using the stored login credentials; in response to authenticating the login credentials, sending from the account provider to an access token for storage at other than the login credentials for accessing the user account, the access token identifying the user, and wherein the access token is persistent and lasts for longer than a single session; receiving a request to access the user account and provide account data, wherein the request comprises (i) the access token that was stored and (ii) a consumer key corresponding to the account provider; and directing the account data to. This concept of conducting a transaction fall 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 the claim 34 or claim 44 include: by an account provider system, the aggregation server system, the aggregation server system; at the account provider system from a user device of a user as redirected by the aggregation server system, by the account provider system to the user device a first webpage; into the first webpage; the account provider system; the aggregation server system, at the account provider system from the aggregation server system, from the account provider system and in response to the request, the aggregation server system. 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). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 of by an account provider system, the aggregation server system, the aggregation server system; at the account provider system from a user device of a user as redirected by the aggregation server system, by the account provider system to the user device a first webpage; into the first webpage; the account provider system; the aggregation server system, at the account provider system from the aggregation server system, from the account provider system and in response to the request, the aggregation server system 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. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, page 5 line 7. Applicant’s specification page 5 line 7 states that “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of an example of a generic computer system”. 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. 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). Claim 44 recites similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 35-43, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 34. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent 45-53, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 44. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2025 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 arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to conventional and generic use of financial account authentication, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the computer is generic computer. The applicant has not improved the computer. In the current claim limitation, the device is generic device. The applicant has not improved the device. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to I Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that claims to a method for organizing digital images was directed to an abstract idea); see also Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims to a computer-aided management system for bingo games was directed to an abstract idea) buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims about creating a contractual relationship were directed to an abstract idea), In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. No. 22-1654 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 9, 2024), and Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. No. 22-1654 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 9, 2024) cases are non-precedential decisions and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to I Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that claims to a method for organizing digital images was directed to an abstract idea); see also Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims to a computer-aided management system for bingo games was directed to an abstract idea) buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims about creating a contractual relationship were directed to an abstract idea), In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. No. 22-1654 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 9, 2024), and Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. No. 22-1654 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 9, 2024) cases are non-precedential decisions and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010) decision, the examiner respectfully disagrees these decisions are analogous to the current claims and determinative for the current 101 analysis. Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010) case is non-precedential decision and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that similar to claims in Finjan. Unlike the patentable claims in Finjan, the current claim recites the abstract idea of maintaining a plurality of user accounts and stored login credentials for accessing the user accounts; receiving, a user authorization to provide to account data associated with an account of the user; providing configured for the user to input, into the first webpage, login credentials for accessing the user account; authenticating the login credentials at using the stored login credentials; in response to authenticating the login credentials, sending from the account provider to an access token for storage at other than the login credentials for accessing the user account, the access token identifying the user, and wherein the access token is persistent and lasts for longer than a single session; receiving a request to access the user account and provide account data, wherein the request comprises (i) the access token that was stored and (ii) a consumer key corresponding to the account provider; and directing the account data to. The current case claims are not a technical solution to technical problem, because all of the additional elements in the current case are doing merely receiving information or transmitting data back and forth and the courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The claim limitations are directed to maintaining, receiving, providing, confirming and directing information over a network, which doesn’t provide real basis for improvement to computer technology. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regards to Bascom, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, they use the unconventional step of filtering Internet content using ISP. The filtering was performing remote server rather than local server. In Bascom, they provided technical basis and provided non-conventional and non-routine way of changing the filtering of Internet content using ISP. Unlike Bascom, the current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, applicant’s argument with respect Bascom is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the concept is not directed to abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 34 or claim 44 is directed to an abstract idea of maintaining a plurality of user accounts and stored login credentials for accessing the user accounts; receiving, a user authorization to provide to account data associated with an account of the user; providing configured for the user to input, into the first webpage, login credentials for accessing the user account; authenticating the login credentials at using the stored login credentials; in response to authenticating the login credentials, sending from the account provider to an access token for storage at other than the login credentials for accessing the user account, the access token identifying the user, and wherein the access token is persistent and lasts for longer than a single session; receiving a request to access the user account and provide account data, wherein the request comprises (i) the access token that was stored and (ii) a consumer key corresponding to the account provider; and directing the account data to. This concept of conducting financial account authentication fall 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. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the limitations in the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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