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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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, 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, 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. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 2-21 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards managing payment policies and disparate employee classes (e.g., admin, executive, officers, etc.) across an organization. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., employers, and more particularly, accounting departments, etc.) manually and via generic computing. Corporate accounting departments have long approved or denied purchases by employees based on class, attributes, and policies. Moreover, access to disparate areas of a platform or GUI’s for differing classes of employees (e.g., administrative, etc.) has long been provided. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—a system, memory, one or more hardware processors, a network, GUI, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2, 3, 5-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0103367 to Borgmeyer, in view of US 2020/0211012 to Franceschi et al.
With respect to Claims 2, 11, and 20, Borg teaches a method (FIG. 3), and a system (FIG. 1; [0018]) comprising: a non-transitory memory ([0026]) storing instructions; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory (FIG. 1) and configured to read the instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising: authorizing, over a network connection, a user of an organization for access to an application that configures organizational software of the organization via a computing device used by the user ([0018]; [0046]; FIG. 1, policy authority, read in light of the state of the art at the time, i.e., it was the state of the art comprising Borgmeyer to give an employee authority to access organizational software via a computing device); executing the application with the computing device over the network connection ([0046]); configuring a first interface of the application for a graphical user interface (GUD of the computing device (see, e.g., [0027], the entirety of the embodiment taught is applicable; FIGS. 4 and 5 teach GUI’s in general), wherein the first interface comprises a plurality of options aligned in the first interface in association with a corresponding one of a plurality of user classes at the organization for a plurality organizational policies enforced through the organizational software ([0018];[0029]; FIGS. 3,4, [0058], description teaches plural classes/policies); displaying the first interface in the application via the GUI of the computing device over the network connection (FIG. 4); receiving, from the network connection based on an input made in association with the plurality of options in the first interface (claim 17 therein), a designation of a first user class and a first policy for the first user class ([0018]; FIG. 4, “description”); creating, in the application, an executable process that monitors a data processing network for compliance with the first policy by the first user class (FIG. 1, policy authority); establishing an integration with the data processing network and the organizational software of the organization ([0015];[0029]; and FIG. 1, where the organization software intercommunicates with any network it processes data, which reads upon the limitation); monitoring the data processing network for a data processing event associated with the first user class and the first policy (FIG. 3; [0034], tracked); detecting the data processing event occurring over the data processing network between one of the computing device or another device of a merchant and a card processing gateway ([0034], tracked; e.g., a consumer transacting with a restaurant teaches a card processing gateway (e.g, an issuer), which reads upon the limitation); and enforcing the first policy for the first user class based on the input for the plurality of options, the enforcing comprising one of: preventing the data processing event from completing with the card processing gateway, or allowing the data processing event to complete between the one of the computing device or the other device and the card processing gateway (FIG. 3; [0018], “approving”).
Borg fails to expressly teach, but Fran teaches a first policy indicating a set of rules for data processing events performed by users of the first user class. [0062-63] Fran discusses the daunting task of manually reviewing each expense at all types of companies. [0002] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Borg to include sets of rules for a particular user class as taught by Fran, in order to alleviate the task of reviewing each and every expense separately.
With respect to Claims 3, 12, and 21, Borg teaches wherein the detecting the data processing event comprises receiving and analyzing network data associated with the data processing event on the data processing network utilized for a payment resolution with the card processing gateway ([0034], track), and wherein the enforcing further comprises transmitting a message over the network connection in association with the one of the preventing or the allowing ([0051]).
With respect to Claims 5, and 14, Borg teaches computing a watermark minimum amount and a watermark maximum amount for the first policy, wherein the enforcing the first policy is based on the watermark minimum amount and the watermark maximum amount. [0034]
With respect to Claims 6, and 15, Borg teaches prior to the allowing, determining that an authorization is required for a permission to complete the data processing event; and requesting the authorization from a designated device associated with at least one of the first user class or the first policy. [0057]
With respect to Claims 7, and 16, Borg teaches wherein the requesting the authorization comprises: selecting a communication channel for transmission of the authorization to the designated device of an administrator associated with the first user class based on a messaging preference set by at least one of the organization or the administrator ([0046];[0049]), a time of the data processing event, and a schedule of the administrator; and transmitting the authorization to the designated device via the communication channel (via email for example would be preferred).
With respect to Claims 8, and 17, Borg teaches wherein the first user class comprises a first portion of a plurality of users employed at the organization ([0012];[0031]) and a second user class comprises a second portion of the plurality of users ([0012];[0031]), and wherein each of the first user class and the second user class are associated with separate sets of the plurality of options for the first policy and a second policy of the organization ([0031]).
With respect to Claims 9, and 18, Borg teaches wherein the first policy comprises one of a plurality of policies associated with an accounting and a budget allocated to the first user class ([0031];[0034]).
With respect to Claims 10, and 19, Borg teaches wherein the integration with the data processing network enables the system to detect card readings and payment processing signals, and wherein the integration with the organizational software enables the system to pull organizational data from the organizational software for the plurality of options usable for the organization. ([0015], may be coupled together)
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Borg, in view of Fran, and further in view of US 6,029,144 to Barrett.
With respect to Claims 4, and 13, Borg fails to expressly teach, but Barrett teaches requesting an image of a receipt associated with a processed transaction resulting from the allowing the data processing event to complete; receiving the image; extracting receipt data from the image using optical character recognition; and assigning the receipt to the first policy or a second policy based on the receipt data. (col 3, ln 2-40; col 4, ln 54-col 5, ln 40) Barrett discusses a need to provide automated employee expense account auditing. (col 1, ln 35-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Borg to include treatment of receipts as taught in Barrett, in order to better provide automated employee account auditing.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 7/23/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The amendment adds a limitation directed to determining a set of rules per user class. The § 101 rejection is maintained, because the amended claims continue to recite a generalized method of organizing human activity, even if in real-time. That is to say, during working hours, accounting departments have long been utilized to determine approval of expenditures by employees via telephone or email communication. The claims fail to recite a practical application, or significantly more under step 2B. Separating into class such as management, administrators, officers, executives, etc. was also known in the art. See, e.g., Franceschi added to the prior art references of record. Applicant’s arguments regarding technical solution are not persuasive, as the offerings have real world analogy to human decision making. It is insufficient to replace a human with artificial intelligence that makes the determination faster and more efficiently. Additionally restrictions on credit cards, wherein the companies policy is integrated with a payment network is known in the art (see, Franceschi [0019], restrictions, limits, etc.). These restrictions/limits work to prevent a transaction in real time. As per the prior art rejection, Franceschi has been added to teach the added limitation. As such, Applicant’s traversal of Borgmeyer is moot. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights