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 .
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category: a method, a system or non-transitory machine-readable medium.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 or claim 12 or claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea of causing of a user to present; 1) a prompt that allows a linking of a user account of the user with; and 2) a plurality of commands, wherein at least a subset of the plurality of commands comprise a plurality of user-defined voice commands; linking, based on one or more user inputs received, the user account and the plurality of user-defined voice commands to; detecting, after the linking, a voice command generated by the user; analyzing the voice command, wherein the analyzing comprises matching the detected voice command with the plurality of user-defined voice commands that were previously linked to; determining, based on the analyzing indicating a match between the detected voice command and a user-defined voice command of the plurality of user-defined voice commands, that the detected voice command includes a request to perform a transaction via the user account; based on the determining, accessing information that includes user authentication credentials, a specified amount for the transaction, and identification information of another party involved in the transaction; authenticating the user based on the user authentication credentials; and processing, based on a successful authentication of the user, the transaction with the another party via the user account according to the specified amount; wherein at least one of the detecting, the analyzing, the determining, the accessing, the authenticating, or the processing is performed at least in part via. This concept of conducting a transaction fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 12 or 21 include: a graphical user interface of a mobile application executable on a user device; a wireless personal assistant system; via the graphical user interface; the wireless personal assistant system; electronically; the electronically via a wireless personal assistant system; electronically; the wireless personal assistant system; a processor; graphical user interface; electronically; electronic communication between the wireless personal assistant system and a service provider, and wherein the electronic communication is conducted under a cellular protocol, a WiFi protocol, a Bluetooth protocol, or a near field communication (NFC) protocol. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system and display amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a graphical user interface of a mobile application executable on a user device; a wireless personal assistant system; via the graphical user interface; the wireless personal assistant system; electronically; the electronically via a wireless personal assistant system; electronically; the wireless personal assistant system; a processor; graphical user interface; electronically; electronic communication between the wireless personal assistant system and a service provider, and wherein the electronic communication is conducted under a cellular protocol, a WiFi protocol, a Bluetooth protocol, or a near field communication (NFC) protocol is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic wireless personal assistant system, generic processor, generic graphical user interface and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 1, claim 12 or/and claim 21 is/are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 and 24, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 13, 15-17 and 25, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 12. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 22-23 and 26, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 21. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the examiner have amended or canceled the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections based on applicant’s claim amendments. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above.
In response to applicant’s argument, see pages 11-13, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike claim 1 of Example 42, applicant’s claimed invention does not solve a technical problem related to format inconsistencies. Applicant’s claim 1 provides no similar technology improvement to how data is stored and converted, in real time or otherwise. Instead, the process recited in applicant’s claim 1 merely invokes a computer as a tool for carrying out a non-technical process of “performing financial transactions”. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the limitations in the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The additional elements recited in claims include: a graphical user interface of a mobile application executable on a user device; a wireless personal assistant system; via the graphical user interface; the wireless personal assistant system; electronically; the electronically via a wireless personal assistant system; electronically; the wireless personal assistant system; a processor; graphical user interface; electronically; electronic communication between the wireless personal assistant system and a service provider, and wherein the electronic communication is conducted under a cellular protocol, a WiFi protocol, a Bluetooth protocol, or a near field communication (NFC) protocol. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system and display amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with regard to DDR, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR, they address problems unique to the Internet and solve problem necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks and improve an existing technological process. Unlike DDR, the current case does not make specific improvement to the technology. The current case just merely computing. In the current claim limitation, the computer is a generic wireless personal assistant system. The applicant has not improved the wireless personal assistant system. In the current limitation, the processor is a generic processor. The applicant has not improved the conventional processor. In the current limitation, the graphical user interface is a generic graphical user interface. The applicant has not improved the conventional graphical user interface. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695