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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 21 and 38 are amended. Claims 21-40 are pending examination.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,276,083. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform similar method steps and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions.
Application number: 18233979
21. (New) A computer-implemented method of recommending a payment option, the method comprising:receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user; receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase; determining, by a classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, by the classifier, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase;applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase,wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet, or a database,wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits.
Patient Application number: 11,763,330
1. A computer-implemented method of recommending a payment option, the method comprising:
receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user;
receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase;
training a classifier on a tagged data set including previously generated payment option recommendations, wherein the classifier includes a convolutional neural network, a Bayesian network, a neural tree network, or a support-vector machine;
determining, by the classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options;
applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options;
comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options;
identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value;
recommending the identified payment option to the user;
identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase, wherein identifying at least one alternative purchase includes determining a geographic location of the user using location tracking of the user and identifying the at least one alternative purchase based on the geographic location of the user;
determining, by the classifier, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase;
applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase, wherein the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is calculated based on an incentive to be received by the user;
determining that the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options;
transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase;
receiving a signal that the user has made a purchase of the at least one alternative purchase; and
re-training the classifier on a second tagged data set including data of the received signal that the user has made the purchase of the at least one alternative purchase; wherein the second tagged data set includes data of the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase.
As to the independent claims:
Instant claim 22 is an obvious variation of patented claim 2.
Instant claim 23 is an obvious variation of patented claim 3.
Instant claim 24 is an obvious variation of patented claim 4.
Instant claim 25 is an obvious variation of patented claim 5.
Instant claim 26 is an obvious variation of patented claim 6.
Instant claim 27 is an obvious variation of patented claim 7.
Instant claim 28 is an obvious variation of patented claim 8.
Instant claim 29 is an obvious variation of patented claim 9.
Instant claim 30 is an obvious variation of patented claim 10.
Instant claim 31 is an obvious variation of patented claim 11.
Instant claim 32 is an obvious variation of patented claim 12.
Instant claim 33 is an obvious variation of patented claim 13.
Instant claim 34 is an obvious variation of patented claim 14.
Instant claim 35 is an obvious variation of patented claim 15.
Instant claim 36 is an obvious variation of patented claim 16.
Instant claim 37 is an obvious variation of patented claim 17.
Instant claim 38 is an obvious variation of patented claim 19.
Instant claim 40 is an obvious variation of patented claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the changes above in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 21, and 38 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 21, and 38 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 21-40 are directed to payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. Specifically, claim(s) 21, and 38 recite(s) receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user; receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase; determining, by a classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; applying, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase, wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet, wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and grouped as following:
receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user; receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase; determining, by a classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
determining, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
applying, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet, wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as database merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the database perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user; receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase; determining, by a classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; applying, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase, wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet, wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a database to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the database perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user; receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase; determining, by a classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; applying, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase, wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet, wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 22-37, and 39-40 further describe the abstract idea of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. Claim(s) 22-37, and 39-40 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a classifier, network, support-vector machine, database to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the classifier, network, support-vector machine, database perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet; wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits; wherein the non-monetary benefits include an additional warranty, theft protection, flight forgiveness, or insurance; generating a list including the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; and transmitting the generated list to the user; wherein the plurality of payment options includes at least one credit card, at least one debit card, at least one prepaid card, at least one gift card, at least one bank card, at least one virtual card, at least one membership card, or at least one membership account; wherein the plurality of payment options includes at least one cryptocurrency; wherein the cryptocurrency is configured to be authenticated using a blockchain; providing a list of payment options in order of priority based on at least one predetermined priority convention provided by the user; identifying a new payment option not included in the plurality of payment options for the user; and recommending signing up for the new payment option to the user; wherein the new payment option includes at least one incentive that will become available on a future date; receiving at least one value preference from the user; and increasing at least one value applied by the classifier based on the at least one value preference received from the user; determining an amount of incentives previously accrued for each payment option of the plurality of payment options; generating a list including the determined amount of incentives previously accrued for each payment option of the plurality of payment options; and transmitting the generated list to the user. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Prior Art
4. As for the amendment submitted on 12/08/2025, the Office is unaware of any references that teach the combination of limitations found in the claims.
In reference to independent claims 21, and 38, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, by the classifier, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase.”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
The closest reference(s) found is/are similar but barely or do not teach all the limitations/steps of the claims:
Reference 1: US20190139019A1describes when a user is considering to purchase an item defined as a good or service, he or she will first determine a payment option in step 300, whereby the payment options include various credit cards, debit cards, gift cards and loyalty cards which typically offer rewards upon use. Rewards are considered to be benefits bestowed upon the user of the card. The rewards associated with a first payment option (e.g. first credit card) are determined in step 304. Many variables can come into play in consideration of each payment option such as the expiration date of the credit card, where the card can be used (e.g. specific stores), whether the card can be used to purchase the particular item being considered for purchase, whether the prospective purchase will exceed a limit on the card, etc. Associated rewards of the first credit card can vary according to the specific time and date of a purchase, the location of a purchase, whether the purchase opportunity would change the available reward, whether other coupons or discounts are concurrently offered for the purchase, etc., and claim 1 and 2: Location. A user's current location can be determined as well as the locations of nearby stores and other retail venues which accept a particular payment option such as a credit card to purchase a particular good or service. However it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Reference 2: WO2012047911A2 describes In S1 12, which is optional, the web-based marketplace permits users/content generators to leave feedback/comments relating to the classes, lectures, etc. which form the basis for the user generated content that is being posted. Such comments can be a review of a professor/teacher/lecturer, a review of a class/lecture, or even a review of the content/worth of a certain class/lecture. Turning to Figure 2, Figure 2 depicts the various steps, some optional, that a user/content purchaser would undertake to utilize a web-based content marketplace. In S202 a prospective user/purchaser (at least at this juncture since the user/content purchaser has not yet posted material), or a repeat user/content purchaser, accesses the web site for the web-based content marketplace. As would be apparent to one of skill in the art, such a web site could be accessed from any type of electronic device that has available an Internet connection. Such devices include, but are not limited to, computers, cell phones, tablet computers, web access devices, Internet ready appliances {e.g., Internet ready televisions), etc. In S204, if need be, the user/content purchaser creates an account. Such an account permits the user to: (i) track various aspects of their account; (ii) set up payment options; (iii) purchase content; (iv) make payments for any content that is purchased; (v) post comments about the quality or the details of the content purchased (including a review of the content if so desired); and/or (vi) if so desired post their own content for sake. As would be apparent to those of skill in the art, not all of the above features will be utilized by every user. In fact some users may only utilize one of the above features. However it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 21, and 38 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 21, and 38, especially claim limitations: identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, by the classifier, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase, and which is an idea of having two payment options and providing an incentive with the highest applied value then recommend that payment option to the user for making an alternative purchase and applying the determined incentive by transmitting the recommendation for the alternative purchase with the incentive to the user that is higher than any of the applied value for the available incentive for the two payment options for making the alternative purchase stored in a digital wallet or database and wherein the incentive can include cash back, reward points, or non-monetary benefits.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
NPL Reference
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “What Are Early Payment Discounts? Here’s the Complete Guide” describes “payment terms, which could leave your small to mid-sized business unable to secure the working capital needed to operate and grow. As a result, more and more companies are seeking out financing options — including lines of credit, receivables financing and financing solutions — to help them access cash while they wait
for payment. While it’s nice to have these options, the costs can be incredibly high — several online lenders charge as much as 65% annual percentage rate (APR). Fortunately, there’s a more cost-friendly
option: early payment discounts”.
Pertinent Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference#20220270168 teaches similar invention which describes intelligent electronic record management is described herein. A service provider can receive, via a payor user interface, electronic records associated with a payor. The service provider can recommend, using a machine-trained model, that a payment associated with a first electronic record be paid using a first form of payment. The service provider can settle the payment associated with the first electronic record using the first form of payment. The service provider can additionally settle a payment associated with a second electronic record using a second form of payment recommended for payment of the second electronic record.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)), (MPEP § 2106.04).
As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “database” perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving data of a plurality of payment options for a user; receiving data of a prospective purchase to be made by the user, wherein at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options are available for making the prospective purchase; determining, by a classifier, at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; applying, by the classifier, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; comparing, by the classifier, the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options; identifying a payment option having a corresponding incentive with the highest applied value; recommending the identified payment option to the user; identifying at least one alternative purchase that might be considered by the user based on the data of the prospective purchase, wherein at least one payment option of the plurality of payment options is available for making the at least one alternative purchase; determining, at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; applying, a value to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase; and transmitting a recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase to the user if the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase is higher than any of the applied values for the at least one available incentive associated with each of the at least two payment options of the plurality of payment options, wherein the recommendation for the at least one alternative purchase includes the value applied to the at least one available incentive associated with the at least one payment option available for making the at least one alternative purchase, wherein the plurality of payment options are stored in a digital wallet, an electronic wallet, wherein the incentives include cash back, rewards points, or non-monetary benefits. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “database” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of payment method that has payment options which includes future or prospective purchases of a user and applying incentive to the payment option that would give the highest discount value. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B