Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 8/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand cancelled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. The claim objection has been overcome by amendment.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to 18106798 is acknowledged. The claims are therefore afforded an effective filing date of 07/02/2020.
Claim Rejection - 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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1, 3-7, and 21 are directed to a machine, claims 8, 10-14, and 22 directed to a process, and claims 15, 17-20 and 23 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
request a first page of a commerce system, wherein the first page is associated with a catalog section of the commerce system;
add at least one item present in the catalog section to a shopping cart;
request a second page generated by the commerce system that requests purchase information;
obtain a watchdog transaction account, wherein the watchdog transaction account comprises an unissued account number that is not associated with a valid transaction account, and wherein the watchdog transaction account comprises authentication information configured such that the watchdog transaction account would be declined when presented for payment in a transaction;
input the purchase information, comprising at least the unissued account number, into the second page generated by the commerce system;
make a selection included in the second page, wherein the selection triggers a purchase associated with the watchdog transaction account; and
store a record of the purchase, the record comprising a merchant identifier associated with the commerce system and the watchdog transaction account, wherein the record of the purchase can be compared against later declined transactions to detect fraudulent use.
The above limitations recite the concept of retail checkout & payment security activity. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user 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.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform steps
web pages
the commerce system being electronic
manipulating a button in a web page
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform steps
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-23 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform steps
web pages
the commerce system being electronic
manipulating a button in a web page
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform steps
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable over Prior Art of Record
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 101) as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 would be allowable over prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejections above and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record include Lacoss-Arnold (US 20160110709 A1), hereinafter Lacoss-Arnold, Fort et al (US20210357941A1), hereinafter Fort, and Johansson et al (US10395243B1), hereinafter Johansson.
Lacoss-Arnold teaches systems for detecting potentially compromised payment cards [Abstract], including a merchant website for viewing and purchasing items through an online store [0045, 0016], in which items can be selected to purchase [0045]. A card identifier, formatted as an account number, is used [0055], which is configured to be declined if used on other merchant website [0056-0057, 0004]. The account can also be declined if not in good standing [0033]. The card identifier token is provided to the merchant [0054] and used to perform a transaction when valid [0056]. Information about the transaction card is stored in a database [0034]; the stored information is used to detect subsequent attempts to use the card where not valid and to flag it as potentially compromised [0017-0019].
Fort teaches virtual cards tied to a specific merchant which, when used at another merchant, are declined & used to determine a security breach at the first merchant.
Johansson teaches “shadow accounts” used to provide privacy protections at checkout, which can also be declined & used determine fraud when a transaction is requested at another merchant.
However, each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious at least the limitations to: obtain a watchdog transaction account, wherein the watchdog transaction account comprises an unissued account number that is not associated with a valid transaction account, and wherein the watchdog transaction account comprises authentication information configured such that the watchdog transaction account would be declined when presented for payment in a transaction; input the purchase information, comprising at least the unissued account number, into the second page generated by the electronic commerce system; manipulate a button included in the second web page, wherein the button triggers a purchase associated with the watchdog transaction account; and store a record of the purchase, the record comprising a merchant identifier associated with the electronic commerce system and the watchdog transaction account, wherein the record of the purchase can be compared against later declined transactions to detect fraudulent use.
Each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations in the independent claims 1,8, and 15, alone or in obvious combination. Therefore, at least for the combination of elements recited in the independent claims, the independent claims and those that depend thereon are allowable over prior art if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues that claim 1 “is not directed towards the abstract idea of retail checkout and payment security activity,” but towards “a technical design involving a system that can input information comprising at least an unissued account number, into the second page generated by the electronic commerce system wherein the unissued account number is also comprised by a watchdog transaction account that comprises authentication information configured such that the watchdog transaction account would be declined when presented for payment in a transaction.” Applicant argues that this “is technical language that defines a specific system,” and “does not attempt to claim any abstract idea or preempt general retail checkout & payment security activity.”
Examiner disagrees. The claims are not being interpreted to “preempt general retail checkout & payment security activity” as argued, but to recite a specific abstract idea, as identified in the rejection above, which provides steps for retail checkout and payment security activity. These steps included the argued ability to input information including an unissued account number that is then declined when submitted for the purchase of a selected item; the term “watchdog” account appears to refer to functionality not positively recited in the independent claims where the account number could be compared against account numbers of future transactions to detect if somebody else attempts to use it. These functionalities are part of the abstract idea, with only a general linking to computer technology provided by additional elements, such as the system being electronic and the purchase being triggered by a button, that are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to apply this abstract idea, including the inputting & submission of the unissued account number, to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Applicant further argues that the Specification defines a technical improvement over prior art, arguing that the ability to generate “a fictitious transaction or payment account that would be declined” and the ability to “submit the watchdog transaction account as part of an order or purchase request to the electronic commerce system,” amounts to “a technical solution to a technical problem.” Applicant “submits that "add at least one item present in the catalog section to a shopping cart," "request a second web page generated by the electronic commerce system that requests purchase information," "an unissued account number that is not associated with a valid transaction account," "input the purchase information, comprising at least the unissued account number, into the second page," and "the button triggers a purchase associated with the watchdog transaction account" are closely related to the "technical solution" described and therefore integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, “the ability to generate “a fictitious transaction or payment account that would be declined” and the ability to “submit the watchdog transaction account as part of an order or purchase request” to a commerce system are part of the abstract idea itself, as are the argued steps to add an item from a first page to a shopping cart, request a second page and populate it with an unissued account number not associated with a valid transaction account, and trigger a purchase with said information. Thus, the alleged solution is at best a business solution to a business problem, rooted solely in the abstract idea; the ability to perform and record a failed purchase with a particular unissued account number in the manner claimed, in order to compare to later transaction attempts to identify security breaches at the relevant merchant/commerce system, is abstract and untethered to computer technology. The additional elements are invoked at a high level of generality as mere instructions to apply this abstract technique for executing such transactions to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Applicant further argues that the claims contain language that is not well-understood or routine for the relevant industry, arguing that “claim 1 recites "obtain a watchdog transaction account, wherein the watchdog transaction account comprises an unissued account number that is not associated with a valid transaction account, and wherein the watchdog transaction account comprises authentication information configured such that the watchdog transaction account would be declined when presented for payment in a transaction." Applicant submits that in the surrounding industry, this language is not "conventional activity" and instead represents an "inventive concept" and "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exception.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the argued step is entirely part of the abstract idea. The ability to obtain account information including “an unissued account number that is not associated with a valid transaction account,” providing it at checkout, submitting a purchase which will be declined, and storing the account number for later comparison, is part of the abstract idea itself, not a computer-related additional element. The additional elements are invoked at a high level of generality as mere instructions to apply this abstract technique to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Applicant further argues that “Insofar as claims 8 and 15 may recite similar subject matter as claim 1, Applicant also requests that the rejections of claims 8 and 15 be withdrawn. Additionally, for at least the reason that claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-23 all depend from one of claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant also respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 3- 7, 10-14, and 17-23 be withdrawn. Further, Applicant submits that claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-23 may also be independently patentable due to the additional subject matter recited within these claims.”
Examiner disagrees for the reasons addressed in the rejection and response above.
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 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 THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9-5 ET.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights