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 reply to the response filed on November 20, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 were previously cancelled.
Claims 6 and 13 were amended.
Claims 6 and 13 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims recite particular machines that perform the highly technical steps of the claims in a way that is not a method of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. The one or more computer processors and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium are generic computer machines. Applicant’s Specification at paragraph 88 explicitly states that “Embodiments of the system or portions of the system may be in the form of a ‘processing machine,’ such as a general-purpose computer, for example.” General purposes computers are not particular machines. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention improved the efficiency of current systems and methods by introducing a way to check order and transaction status. Examiner disagrees. The improvement identified by Applicant is attributable to the cited abstract idea, and an improved abstract idea is still abstract. The claimed invention was not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations, when considered individually and in combination with the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention is a practical application of improving payment transactions by removing fraud and cancelling fraudulent transactions and tracking order status changes. Applicant further argued that the claimed invention is also an improvement to a technological problem of failing to match transaction and order information by using APIs and communications between machines. Examiner disagrees. The mitigation of fraud by the claimed invention is attributable to the cited abstract idea because fraud mitigation is an example of a fundamental economic practice, one of the subgroups of abstract ideas described as “certain methods of organizing human activity”. As explained previously, an improved abstract idea is still abstract. The failure to match transaction and order information is not due to any technological obstacle overcome by the claimed invention. Therefore, the use of APIs and communications between machines to address the matching issue does not demonstrate a technological improvement. For this reason, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the independent claims each claim a particular way to resolve the apparent problem in a manner that does not merely claim the idea of a solution or outcome. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s solution to the apparent problem is not a technological improvement because the problem addressed by Applicant’s claimed invention is not technological in nature. Applicant’s solution is an application of technology, but it is not an improvement of technology because no technological problem was solved. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest the limitations in amended claims 6 and 13. Examiner agrees. In light of Applicant’s amendments, the prior art does not teach or suggest every limitation found in amended claims 6 and 13. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent product claim 13 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 6. Claim 13 recites the following limitations:
[A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising:]
receiving, [from a merchant system,] a transaction involving a customer of a financial institution;
authorizing the transaction;
communicating a notification to a messaging address associated with the customer, transaction information and an option to report the transaction as unauthorized, wherein the transaction information comprises a merchant, a cost, a date and time, and a good description or a service description, wherein the messaging address comprises a SMS address or an email address;
receiving, [by the financial institution computer program and from an electronic device associated with the customer,] a report that the transaction was unauthorized;
uploading, [by the financial institution computer program,] a digital receipt for the transaction based on the merchant, the date, the good description or the service description, and a card number, if a requested receipt from the electronic device associated with the customer is not received within a predetermined period of time;
persisting, [by the financial institution computer program,] the digital receipt;
matching, [by an order tracking system computer program of the financial institution,] the digital receipt to the transaction using the date, the cost, and the merchant;
fetching, [by the order tracking system computer program of the financial institution accessing a merchant backend via an application programming interface (“API”) exposed by the merchant backend,] a status of an order associated with the transaction;
notifying the merchant system that the transaction was unauthorized, wherein the merchant system is configured to cancel the transaction, wherein the notifying comprises a notification sent to the messaging address for the customer for transactions occurring in a period between a credit card being mailed and acknowledgement of customer receipt of the credit card;
fetching, [by an order tracking system and from the merchant system,] a background update to determine a status of the order associated with the credit card;
requesting, by the merchant backend and from a delivery provider system of the credit card, tracking information associated with the credit card;
exposing, by the merchant backend, an order status API for access by the order tracking system to retrieve status;
sending, [by the order tracking system], an update an application executed by the electronic device associated with the consumer if the status of the order changes;
executing, [by the financial institution computer program,] closing a credit card associated with the card number used to conduct the transaction in response to the report that the transaction was unauthorized;
cancelling, [by the financial institution computer program,] the transaction;
disabling, [by the financial institution computer program], an account associated with the financial instrument;
updating, [by the order tracking system,] the status of the order associated with the transaction based on the cancelled transaction; and
providing, [by the financial institution computer program,] a dashboard view on the electronic device, the dashboard view comprising consolidated order information from more than one account of the customer, the consolidated order information comprising the order and the status.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium, one or more computer processors, merchant system, financial institution computer program, electronic device associated with the customer, order tracking system computer program of the financial institution, and application programming interface in Claim 13 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 6 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, one or more computer processors, merchant system, financial institution computer program, electronic device associated with the customer, order tracking system computer program of the financial institution, and application programming interface. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 6 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 6 and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Stephen, Pitz, and Abad do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Stephen teaches a transaction processing system. Pitz teaches a method and system for real time fraud decisioning in transaction processing. Abad teaches a system for temporarily enabling a payment account. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations for notifying, by the financial institution computer program, the merchant system that the transaction was unauthorized, wherein the merchant system is configured to cancel the transaction, wherein the notifying comprises a notification sent to the messaging address for the customer for transactions occurring in a period between a credit card being mailed and acknowledgment of customer receipt of the credit card; fetching, by an order tracking system and from the merchant system, a background update to determine a status of the order associated with the credit card; requesting, by the merchant backend and from a delivery provider system of the credit card, tracking information associated with the credit card; exposing, by the merchant backend, an order status API for access by the order tracking system to retrieve status; and sending, by the order tracking system, an update an application executed by the electronic device associated with the consumer if the status of the order changes, as described by the allowed claims. For these reasons, claims 6 and 13 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Mueller (US 2024/0202723 A1) discloses systems and methods to receive stored user data comprising a history of data inputs associated with a user.
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 of 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 extension fee 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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 7, 2026
/Mike Anderson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693