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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant has argued that the claims are similar to the Desjardins case and should be considered in light of the latest USPTO memo regarding that case. The Examiner disagrees. Desjardins was directed to improvements to a machine learning model, specifically one that based on the improvements to the model, improved the functioning of the computer itself by reducing the storage required and reduced complexity of the overall system. The instant claims are directed towards providing an receipt, which does not appear to be similar to the claims in the Desjardins case. Further by implanting the method of the instant claims, it creates more complexity than simply issuing a receipt in any other traditional fashion.
Further the Applicant has argued that the claims provide for a practical application and provide for significantly more than the before identified abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. 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.
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; wherein the transaction receipt details are received at the network storage location without disclosing any personal information, contact information, or identity of the consumer to the merchant device or to the merchant server during the receiving; 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; and storing the transaction receipt details at the network storage location linked to the account of the consumer such that the consumer accesses the transaction receipt details through the account without having registered any personal information or contact information with the merchant.
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 and protecting personal information of the consumer by withholding the account of the consumer, contact information of the consumer, and identity of the consumer from the merchant and from the merchant device or the merchant server throughout the receiving, generating, providing, receiving, maintaining, and discarding..
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; 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; and storing the transaction receipt details at the network storage location linked to the account of the consumer such that the consumer accesses the transaction receipt details through the account without the merchant, the merchant device, or the merchant server having received or retained any personal information, contact information, or identity of the consumer during the transaction.
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.
Conclusion
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