DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on August 31, 2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9, 12-13, 16 and 19-20 have been cancelled.
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1 and 11 recite a specific GUI that improves computer functionality by reducing the need to cycle through multiple screens. Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity, including financial transaction and refund processing, and mental processes involving collecting, comparing, and determining how to apply transaction and refund information. The additional GUI limitations merely recite displaying information and providing selectable options on a generic communication device, which amounts to presentation of information and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they recite a particular technical solution analogous to the claims in Core Wireless, Data Engine, or Trading Technologies. Rather, the claims use generic computer components to implement a business practice in a user-friendly manner. Further, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite conventional computer functions performed in a routine manner. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 10) and a machine (claims 11, 14-15, 17-18 and 21). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
receiving an indication of the transaction associated with a purchase of a product from a merchant via a value card of a customer, the value card being usable to support multiple transaction types including a debit purchase or a credit purchase;
receiving an indication of selected transaction type indicating whether the transaction is to be treated as an instance of the debit purchase or the credit purchase, the selected transaction type being determined based on a customer election or a default setting;
directing funds to the merchant in an amount of the transaction within a predetermined period of time following receipt of the indication of the transaction and prior to receiving the indication of selected transaction type;
selectively processing the transaction with respect to the customer based on the selected transaction type, wherein selectively processing the transaction comprises, in response to the transaction being treated as the instance of the debit purchase, arranging to withdraw funds in the amount of the transaction from an associated debit account of the customer, and, in response to the transaction being treated as the instance of the credit purchase, establishing a loan for the customer and providing loan repayment information to the customer;
storing a transaction record indicating the amount of the transaction and the selected transaction type;
receiving a product return indication;
retrieving, by a refund management module, the transaction record to determine the amount of the transaction and the selected transaction type, wherein the refund path comprises crediting the associated debit account of the customer from which the debit purchase is funded in response to the transaction being treated as the instance of the debit purchase, and adjusting loan repayment terms in response to the transaction being treated as the instance of the credit purchase, and wherein adjusting loan repayment terms comprises modifying a number or amount of payments to be made on the loan in response to the product return indication providing a merchant match, the merchant match being determined based on the refund amount satisfying a predetermined ratio requirement with respect to the amount of the transaction, wherein modifying the number or amount of payments comprises reducing, in memory, a payment amount of each latest-dated scheduled payment in the schedule of scheduled payments until the refund amount is fully applied;
automatically determining a refund path based on the selected transaction type in response to a match of the amount of the transaction and a refund amount of the product return indication, and a match of the merchant associated with the transaction and a merchant associated with the product return indication;
in response to no match of the transaction and the refund amount of the product return indication, or no match of the merchant associated with the transaction and the merchant associated with the product return indication, automatically causing display at a communication device of the customer of the amount of the transaction simultaneous with display of both a first selectable display element to, responsive to selection of the first selectable display element, display a list of recent loans and a second selectable display element to, responsive to selection of the first selectable display element, indicate that the refund amount is not associated with a loan at a communication device of the customer;
in response to selection of the first selectable element, generating instructions for display of a list of potential loans to which the refund amount is capable of being applied at the communication device of the customer, simultaneously with presentation of at least one other refund and corresponding potential loans, the list of potential loans and the at least one other refund and corresponding potential loans each including a merchant identifier for each loan in the respective lists, and a corresponding refund amount along with multiple selectable loans to which the corresponding refund amount is applied in response to selection of a corresponding one of the multiple selectable loans; and
processing the product return based on the refund path determined.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes the sub-category of commercial interactions involving sales/purchase activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: processing a payment transaction between a customer and a merchant for a purchase, including the customer’s use of a value card and selection of a debit or credit payment type for the transaction, including sending funds to the merchant for payment for the purchase and storing a transaction record, including receiving indication of a purchased product return and matching the purchase and refund amounts and merchant information from the purchase transaction and return indicator, where no match of the refund amount or merchant information causes display to the customer of the transaction amount and various loan data and selectable elements related to the loan data, and then processing the requested product return).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “user interface”, a customer “communication device”, various “processing circuitry” and various generated “instructions” configured to cause various data to be displayed, and including various user input selection functions, do not provide a technological improvement since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface for displaying and inputting data, and/or a computer or communication network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application. See Applicant’s Specification paragraphs 34 and 52-55.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved or provide a technological improvement, but rather, the claims are simply using the above-described additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or communication network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.) See Applicant’s Specification paragraphs 34 and 52-55.
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 17 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that loan repayment terms are adjusted for a customer for a product return based on differing adjustments to the loan under differing conditions, and such adjusted terms may be displayed on a customer device, which are not technological solutions to a technological problem, and therefore these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 10, 18, and 21 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that a refund path for the customer is determined under differing financial conditions, including whether there is a matching or not a matching of certain transaction data (amount, merchant information), without providing any technological improvement. Therefore, these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
