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 amendment filed 09/11/2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended and claims 21-23 newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 12, and 17 being independent).
The amendment filed 09/11/2025 to the claims has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant arguments (Applicant’s remarks, pages 12-23):
(1) Applicant arguments that “The instant Claims do not merely recite "methods of organizing human activity," but instead recite several detailed steps and features such that the Claims recite a specific application or particular performance.” (see remarks, page 13), are not found persuasive.
In the present case, under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Providing a resolution based on virtual card decline notifications is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(2) Applicant arguments that “Even assuming arguendo that the instant Claims do fall into one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, which Applicant does not concede, the claims are patent eligible because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” (see remarks, page 15), are not found persuasive.
In the present case, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of: “memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions”, “a first interactive graphical user interface”, “machine learning model”, and “an administrator device” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g., “apply it”) and for example, “a first interactive graphical user interface” is not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely a generically “interactive” display, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component and client combination, or generically over the internet (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor and/or other additional elements. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(3) Applicant arguments that “Applicant submits the case DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) describes that claims that may otherwise recite a possible abstract idea may nonetheless be patent eligible if "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, LLC, 773 F.3d at 1257.” (see remarks, page 17), are not found persuasive.
In DDR, the claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in DDR, in which the inventive concept was in the modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display because applicant’s claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet or require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information. So DDR has no applicability.
(4) Applicant arguments that “Additionally, the USPTO has issued examples of claims examined under 35 U.S.C. § 101 that utilize artificial intelligence. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Artificial Intelligence (issued July 2024). Example 47, Claim 3 - Anomaly Detection, specifically provides a second example of a Claim that successfully recites a practical application.” (see remarks, page 19), are not found persuasive.
In view of the new July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which provides additional guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, including artificial intelligence, the Examiner finds the claims ineligible. Similar to Claim 2 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the recitation of “using a heuristic machine learning model” in claim 1 also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application as recited at high level of generality such that it amounts to using a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, akin to using a computer to perform repetitive calculations (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(5) Applicant arguments that “Regardless, even if the Claims are directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, they are patent eligible because they recite an inventive concept. Step 2B "is often referred to as the search for an inventive concept." MPEP 2106.05.” (see remarks, page 19), are not found persuasive.
In the present case, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer component with a generic interactive interface element
(6) Applicant arguments that “The Federal Circuit reinforced this notion by establishing that "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact" that "must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011)).” (see remarks, page 21), are not found persuasive.
In Berkheimer, Applicant argues the Examiner must provide any of the above noted four bases in support of an assertion of a noted element being conventional. The Examiner notes that the steps of the claims, taken individually or as an ordered combination, have been identified as corresponding to an abstract idea. The additional elements in the claim are “processors, memory in communication, a first interactive graphical user interface, a second interactive graphical user interface, a heuristic machine learning model, and an administrator device”. Furthermore, it is clear, through a plain reading of Applicant’s specification, that the computing processors are suitably programmed to perform the abstract ilea, see at least paragraphs [0068-0069]. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components. The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
According to the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter), in a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The fact that a generic computing system such as described above can be suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but instead merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence these additional elements do not add anything significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 1-8, 10-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing a resolution based on virtual card decline notifications which contains the steps of generating, receiving, determining, categorizing, generating, and transmitting. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1, 12, and 17 are direct to a system, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing a resolution based on virtual card decline notifications is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: generating… a prefunded virtual card…, receiving… declination data …, determining… a reason the prefunded virtual card…, categorizing… the reason into…, generating… an interactive list view showing…, transmitting… the first…. for display…, receiving… a first request for first information…, generating… a detailed view of at least one of the first transaction …, transmitting… the automatic resolution…, retrieving…. declination data…, determining… the automatic resolution…, applying…. the automatic resolution…., updating… the automatic resolution…, transmitting… for display…, detecting… one or more future declined transactions…, blocking… future declined transactions…
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: “memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions”, “a first interactive graphical user interface”, “machine learning model”, and “an administrator device” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g., “apply it”) and for example, “a first interactive graphical user interface” is not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely a generically “interactive” display, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component and client combination, or generically over the internet (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e., generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e., processors, memory in communication, a first interactive graphical user interface, a second interactive graphical user interface, machine learning model, and an administrator device) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0068-0069]: a user device, a network, a notification system, a web server, a database, a mobile device, general purpose computer, mobile computing devices, an environmental sensor, a geographic location sensor, a transceiver, display, a memory in communication with the one or more processors) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processors, memory in communication, a first interactive graphical user interface, a second interactive graphical user interface, machine learning model, and an administrator device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer network with a generic computer element.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19, and 21-23 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 3, the step of “… wherein the predetermined categories for the reason comprise when a transaction is above a card limit, when exact pay is required, when there is an expiration date mismatch, when the prefunded virtual card is expired….” (i.e., categorizing a declined reason), in claim 4, the step of “… determine a severity rating for each of the one or more previous declined transactions based on the predetermined category;...” (i.e., determining a severity rating), in claim 5, the step of “… determine a numerical order of virtual card numbers associated with the one or more previous declined transactions; ...” (i.e., determining an order), in claim 6, the step of “… wherein the detailed view further comprises a resolution recommendation ...” (i.e., providing a recommendation), in claim 7, the step of “… receive, … a second request for second information ...; generate … an interactive card view comprising the card data, vendor data…” (i.e., displaying card data), in claim 8, the step of “… receive, …. updated card options...; apply the updated card options to correct the reason the prefunded virtual card was declined; ….” (i.e., updating the card option), in claim 10, the step of “… generate a suggestion to a user based on the automatic resolution; ...” (i.e., generating a suggestion), in claim 11, the step of “… are a part of an email, a push notification, a message, ...” (i.e., providing an email), in claim 13, the step of “… responding to declines of the first type, and …. is associated with responding to declines of the second type...” (i.e., responding to declines), in claim 14, the step of “… receive third declination data regarding a third transaction using a third prefunded virtual card; determine, from the third declination data, a third reason the third prefunded virtual card was declined using rules-based decisioning, the third reason categorized as the second type; ...” (i.e., providing a notification), in claim 15, the step of “… generate … showing the first reason; and transmit ...” (i.e., displaying a reason), in claim 18, the step of “… receive, … , administrator data regarding types of previous declined transactions selected from the interactive notification list view...” (i.e., receiving data), in claim 19, the step of “… generate … the interactive notification list view showing previous declined transactions using prefunded virtual cards ...” (i.e., generating list), and in claims 21-23, the step of “… configured to be one or more of expired card, expiration date mismatch, CVV mismatch, above a spending limit, less than an exact pay, ...” (i.e., having categorized reasons) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Reducing a risk based on a virtual card (e.g., E-wallet) decline notification to an individual is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims -8, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19, and 21-23, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 12, and 17 above. Merely claiming the same process to provide a virtual card (e.g., E-wallet) decline notification to an individual based on declined transactions data does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
November 13, 2025
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694