DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on October 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6, 18, and 19.
Applicant cancelled claim 2.
Applicant previously cancelled claims 8, 9, and 11-17.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-7, 10, and 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b) / 2nd paragraph as being indefinite. In view of Applicant’s arguments, Examiner withdraws this rejection.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-7, 10, and 18-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant maintains its argument that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception because the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. While the claims are associated with technology and implemented by technology, just because a computer made a mistake does not make this technological problem. The underlying issue is still a business problem, correcting an incorrect transaction with a business solution. Applicant is remedying the result of the mistake rather than addressing how the mistake occurred on a technological level. Thus, Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to have a method for disputing a transaction. Applicant is not addressing the problem with technology but rather a business solution. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Applicant argued that its claims are not a commercial/legal interaction. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims are directed to a commercial/legal interaction. Applicant’s claims are a method for resolving a disputed transaction. This interpretation is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Merely because a computer made a mistake in the biometric matching does not mean the problem and/or solution is technical in nature. The issue is merely that a person has been misidentified and erroneously charged this is no different than a hotel charging something to the wrong room. Applicant’s claims are no different from a bellhop mistaking Jessica Chastain for Bryce Dallas Howard (both staying at the same hotel) and incorrectly charging Bryce Dallas Howard instead of Jessica Chastain. Merely because a computer made the misidentification does not mean the problem is technical. Applicant is not addressing how the technology made that misidentification; but rather addresses the economic consequences of that misidentification with a commercial solution. Merely because the remedy is a series of steps does not mean that Applicant has recited an ordered combination of operations that result in a practical application.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is indefinite for the following reason:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the repository of the computing device" in the 2nd to last line of page 1. Applicant did not amend “the computing device” to “the dispute host computing device”; thus there is no antecedent basis for “the computing device” or "the repository of the computing device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-7 and 10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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, 3-7, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as initiating an offset (financial refund) due to a biometric mismatch.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1-7, 10) and machine (claims 18-20).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 11 and 18 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
resolving a biometric mismatch in connection with a biometric interaction performed based on the biometric mismatch,:
receiving a biometric mismatch alert from a first party,
the biometric mismatch alert including a credential specific to an account, a requestor ID specific to a merchant involved in a biometric-initiated interaction, and a reason code, the biometric mismatch alert specific to the biometric-initiated interaction, the first party being an issuer of the account;
checking that the reason code is indicative of the biometric mismatch;
confirming the biometric mismatch alert is not a duplicate of a prior biometric mismatch alert;
confirming that the requestor ID is consistent with a format;
in response to the reason code of the biometric mismatch alert being indicative of the biometric mismatch, the biometric mismatch alert not being a duplicate, and the request ID being consistent with a format: retrieving the requestor ID for the biometric-initiated interaction from the biometric mismatch alert;
identifying a biometric provider, which resolved a biometric provided to initiate the biometric-initiated interaction at the merchant, based on a mapping between the requestor ID and the biometric provider;
transmitting the biometric mismatch alert to the identified biometric provider,
the biometric mismatch alert including an identifier for the biometric-initiated interaction,
whereby, based on the identifier, the biometric provider locates a biometric match record and recalculates a confidence score for the biometric match record for the biometric-initiated interaction; and
receiving from said biometric provider, a response to the biometric mismatch alert, which indicates a result based, at least in part, on the recalculated confidence score;
determining, based on the response to the biometric mismatch alert and/or at least one rule, to impose an offset on the biometric provider for the biometric interaction, the at least one rule including a threshold number of mismatch alerts;
and compiling and transmitting a reply to the biometric mismatch alert to the first party,
wherein the reply indicates the offset being imposed on the biometric provider,
whereby the first party initiates an offset interaction to recoup at least part of an amount of the biometric-initiated interaction.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a computing device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, executable instructions, at least one processor, a dispute host computing device, a mapping data structure, a repository of a computer device, a payment processing network; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving a biometric mismatch alert;
retrieving a requestor ID;
transmitting the biometric mismatch alert;
receiving a response to the biometric mismatch alert;
compiling and transmitting a reply;
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, executable instructions, at least one processor, a dispute host computing device, a mapping data structure, a repository of a computer device, a payment processing network; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a vehicle with generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations of:
receiving a biometric mismatch alert;
retrieving a requestor ID;
transmitting the biometric mismatch alert;
receiving a response to the biometric mismatch alert;
compiling and transmitting a reply;
amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0015-16], [0030-0032], [0046-48] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 4-6, 7, 10 and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 18. Therefore, claims 4-6, 7, 10 and 20 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 3, 7, and 19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, and 18. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a mapping data structure, a repository, a processing network computing device. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 3, 7, and 19 are considered ineligible subject matter.
As for dependent claim 7, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claim 1. In addition, the recite the additional elements of
receiving a fee collection message;
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 7 is considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 3-7, 10, 19, and 20 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694