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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 9/17/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-18, and 20-21 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection has been considered but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claims provide for an improvement to the tech/tech field, and that the claims are similar to those found in the 2024 AI guidance update example 47 claim 3. Further the Applicant has argued that the Examiner has failed by not examining each independent claim set. The Examiner disagrees. Example 47 claim 3 is directed towards training an ANN based on training algorithms, detecting anomalies, performing actions based on found anomalies, and preventing future anomalies from occurring. This combination of limitations integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of the identified abstract idea. The instant claims are not similar as they do not deal with similar subject matter (training and using ANN’s), and as identified before do not provide for a practical application of the previously identified abstract idea. Further, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – servers/processors, memory, and merchant device. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In response to the Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has failed to do a claim by claim analysis, the Examiner has provided individual highlighting of each independent claimset below.
Therefore the 101 rejection is maintained and is final.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-18, and 20-21 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and Mental Processes, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
claim 13 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method, comprising:
generating a one-time use token unique to an account of a consumer and linked to a payment card of the consumer responsive to a token requested received from a payment server that is processing a payment on behalf of the consumer during a transaction of the consumer at a merchant device or through a merchant server;
providing the one-time use token and a network storage location back to the payment server;
receiving transaction receipt details for the transaction of the consumer at the network storage location from the merchant device or from the merchant server; and
discarding the one-time use token once the account of the consumer is identified using the one-time use token such that no mapping between the one-time use token and the account of the consumer is retained.
claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method, comprising:
receiving a request for anonymously storing transaction information for a consumer from a payment server during a transaction between the consumer and a merchant;
generating a one-time use token for the transaction linked to an account of the consumer;
providing the one-time use token and a network location for a merchant device or a merchant server to send the transaction information for storage;
receiving the transaction information from the merchant device or the merchant server;
maintaining the transaction information and other transaction information associated with other transactions of the consumer linked to a payment card registered to the account of the consumer at the network location for viewing by the consumer and for reporting as directed by the consumer,
discarding the one-time use token once the account is identified using the one-time use token such that no mapping between the one-time use token and the account of the consumer is retained.
claim 20 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A system, comprising:
a server comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations, comprising:
generating a one-time use token linked to a payment card and an account of a consumer responsive to a token request received from a payment server associated with the payment card during payment by the consumer for a transaction being processed for the consumer on a merchant device or on a merchant server;
providing the one-time use token and a network storage location to the payment server;
receiving transaction receipt details for the transaction of the consumer at the network storage location from the merchant device or from the merchant server; and
discarding the one-time use token once the account of the consumer is identified using the one-time use token such that no mapping between the one-time use token and the account of the consumer is retained.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people), and Mental Processes performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “servers/processors, memory, and merchant device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity or Mental Process. For example, but for the “servers/processors, memory, and merchant device” the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, or mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – servers/processors, memory, and merchant device. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of servers/processors, memory, and merchant device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the servers/processors, memory, and merchant device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
The Examiner notes similar to the parent case, positively reciting the individual elements with the method steps and expanding on the possible non-generic arrangement of parts would help in overcoming the current 101 rejection 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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights