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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 4/30/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claims 1, 11 and 20 as representative recite:
associating, with a control circuit of a merchant payment system, a user account with a plurality of digital wallet accounts in a user accounts database, wherein each digital wallet account is associated with a different digital wallet provider, wherein at least one of the plurality of digital wallet accounts is associated with two or more payment methods, and wherein two or more of the digital wallet accounts each includes at least one bank card as a payment method; storing, with the user account, a plurality of digital wallet customer tokens each associated with a different digital wallet provider, the plurality of digital wallet customer tokens including a digital wallet customer token for a digital wallet account of the plurality of digital wallet accounts, the digital wallet customer token being received from a digital wallet provider system of the digital wallet account; receiving, from a user device and at the merchant payment system configured to communicate with a plurality of user devices, a transaction request from the user account; receiving a charge amount from a POS system for a transaction; pairing the charge amount from the POS system to the transaction request from the user account; selecting, with the merchant payment system, the digital wallet account from the plurality of digital wallet accounts associated with the user account based on digital wallet preferences retrieved from the user accounts database; automatically, in response to receiving the transaction request and the charge amount, sending, with the merchant payment system coupled with a plurality of digital wallet providers, a payment authorization request to a digital wallet provider system associated with the digital wallet account for payment authorization, the payment authorization request comprises digital wallet account information, including the digital wallet customer token, retrieved from the user accounts database; and communicating a result of the payment authorization request to the POS system to complete the transaction, wherein the user accounts database and the merchant payment system are part of a merchant payment network, and the digital wallet provider system is a third-party system outside of the merchant payment network.
The claims as a whole recite processing a commercial payment transaction by selecting a preferred digital wallet and obtaining payment authorization. The claims recite limitations of maintaining financial account relationship, storing account information associated with a customer, receiving a request to initiate a commercial transaction, receiving amount, correlating transaction information, send a payment request, communicate result of the payment authorization request. The claim limitations recite an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, such as commercial activity, specifically a commercial interaction involving payment processing and financial transactions.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims 1, 11 and 20 recite additional elements including user accounts database, merchant payment system, control circuit, user device, POS system, digital wallet provider system, merchant payment network, third-party network communications. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Instead, the computer components merely automate the business process of storing customer payment accounts, selecting one account, requesting authorization, returning an authorization result. The claimed “digital wallet customer token” is merely financial account information used during payment processing. The claims does not recite any technical manner of generating, securing, encrypting, validating or transmitting the token that improves computer technology. Similarly, selecting a wallet “based on digital wallet preferences” merely automates a business rule for deciding which payment account should be used. The recited merchant payment network merely provides the environment in which the abstract business practice is carried out.
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 11 and 20 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG)
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 11 and 20 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
The additional elements are generic computer components performing their well-understood routing and conventional functions. An ordered combination of conventional steps does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 11 and 20 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the prior art rejection has been considered and are persuasive. None of the prior art of record, neither singularly nor in combination, teach or show the following features in combination with other limitations present in independent claims 1, 11m 20 of the application.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection with respect to U.S.C. 101 is made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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 (Ryan) 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights