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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
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 23, 25-30, 32-37, 39-42 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 23 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 23 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: generating a globally unique identifier based on a payment card number, a cardholder identified associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign / generating an electronic content distribution message associated with the electronic content distribution campaign, the electronic content distribution message having a customized hyperlink including the globally unique identifier appended to a uniform resource locator (URL)/ transmitting the electronic content distribution message to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier / in response to the generated electronic content distribution message including the customized hyperlink being transmitted to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier, capturing interaction data indicative of a selection of the customized hyperlink by the user account/ receiving an authorization request corresponding to an electronic transaction, the authorization request comprising one or more of the globally unique identifier, the payment card number, and the cardholder identifier /attributing the electronic transaction to the electronic content distribution campaign based on matching data between the interaction data and the authorization request / associating the captured interaction data with the globally unique identifier. The Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “relate, in general, to the field of purchase transactions”, “attributing purchase transactions to electronic marketing campaigns”, “it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events”, “The targeted marketing campaign can include one or more products being advertised. A product identifier can be associated with each product being advertised via the targeted marketing campaign”, “With specific regard to Internet-based or electronic marketing, it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events, especially when those purchase events occur through different sales channels or occur subsequent to a consumer's initial exposure to marketing communications”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: generating a globally unique identifier based on a payment card number, a cardholder identifier associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 23 includes the additional element of a server/ processor / user device/ data storage, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Capturing data and redirecting via a hyperlink (‘wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Storing data (‘storing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor , the captured interaction data of a user’s interaction with the customized hyperlink in a data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server’) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. storing data. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Capturing data and redirecting via a hyperlink (‘wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Storing data (‘storing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor , the captured interaction data of a user’s interaction with the customized hyperlink in a data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server’) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. storing data in a digital computing environment / on a server represents a well known and commonly used means of storing data , as known of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention; Applicant’s Spec. describes the data storing/ data storing on a server as: “In operation, the memory 168 can store various data and software used during operation of the purchase attribution server 160 such as operating systems, applications, programs, libraries, and drivers. [0031] The data storage 170 can be embodied as any type of device or devices configured for short-term or long-term storage of data such as, for example, memory devices and circuits, memory cards, hard disk drives, solid-state drives, or other data storage devices. For example, in some embodiments, the data storage 170 includes storage media such as a storage device “, “When a transaction is initiated, the transaction can be stored as a transaction record and can comprise transaction data. Transaction records can be stored in one or more locations within the system 100. In one embodiment, the transaction record can be stored within a transaction database (not shown) communicably coupled to the payment processing server 132. The transaction data can be received by the transaction database from various sources, such as the merchant POS device 124, the merchant transaction server 122, the merchant 120, the acquirer processor 130, and so on. A plurality of transaction parameters associated with the payment vehicle transaction can be stored in each transaction record which can generally be used for settlement and financial recordkeeping. “ The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 23 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 30, 37 are directed to a server and computer readable medium for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 23, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 23. The claims perform the claimed steps using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 30, 37 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 23.
Remaining dependent claims 24-29, 31-36, 38-42 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further include the additional elements of a point of sale device, which represents a generic computing element; it is recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art: The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, 39-42. The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is Fordyce (20120109734). It teaches matching transaction profile data and user data characteristics, including receiving first user data associated with first user identifiers used by a first user tracker to track first online activities of users; receiving, second user data associated with second online activities of respective first account identifiers that uniquely identify accounts in a transaction handler; and matching, the first user data with the second user data to identify mapping between the first user identifiers and the first account identifiers. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. The second most relevant prior art identified is Winner (20120209672). It teaches tracking user conversions including online and offline transactions; it teaches identifying an online offer accepted by a customer; receiving a set of transactions executed at a merchant; parsing the set of transactions to determine that a set of criteria associated with the online offer has been satisfied by the customer via one or more transactions at the merchant; and notifying the merchant that the online offer has been satisfied by the customer. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. The Office Action alleges that the claimed subject matter is allegedly directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. (Office Action, at p. 2.) Applicant disagrees with the rejection and the characterizations made in the Office Action.
Applicant respectfully submits that in the Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins Decision on Request for Rehearing, No. 2024-000567 (USPTO Admn. Rev. Panel Sept. 26, 2025) ("Desjardins"), the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) vacated a PTAB panel's sua sponte § 101 rejection of claims directed to machine learning methods. The ARP Decision emphasized the finding by the Federal Circuit that "'[s]oftware can make non- abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can,' [and] . . . "that the eligibility determination should tun on whether 'the claims are directed- to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea."' (Desjardins, at p. 8) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3D 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In particular, the ARP credited claims directed to adjusting parameter values while protecting prior task performance (i.e., an improvement in continual learning), as a valid improvement to how the machine learning model itself functions.
Here, independent claims 23, 30, and 37 relate closely to the principles of Desjardins. These claims recite systems and methods including "generating, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor, an electronic content distribution message associated with the electronic content distribution campaign, the electronic content distribution message having a customized hyperlink including the globally unique identifier appended to a uniform resource locator (URL),""transmitting, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor, the electronic content distribution message to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier, “in response to the generated electronic content distribution message including the customized hyperlink being transmitted to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier, capturing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor, interaction data indicative of a selection of the customized hyperlink by the user account via a user device, wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink," and "associating, the captured interaction data with the globally unique identifier in the data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server." The use of the customized hyperlink and globally unique identifier to track a user's online behavior to improve data tracking techniques. (Specification, [0017]-[0018]). Additionally, the recent Memorandum on § 101, "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101," cautions "not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the "apply it" consideration . . . and that the "apply it" consideration often overlaps with the improvements consideration." Similarly, in the Desjardins Decision the ARP notes that the panel had "essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation. (Desjardins, at p. 9.) The Decision clearly states "[e]xaminers and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." (Id.) Here, the claims provide a detailed and specific improvement to data tracking using a customized hyperlink and globally unique identifier for the customer to maintain security. (Speciation, at[0024]-[0025], [0043]-[0044], [0049].) Accordingly, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the Section 101 rejections on at least these grounds. For the reasons set forth above, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejections are respectfully requested.
When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, and has also taken the recent Memorandum on § 101 into consideration. The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination , integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, 39-42 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 23 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 23 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction — i.e. advertising/ marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: generating a globally unique identifier based on a payment card number, a cardholder identified associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign / generating an electronic content distribution message associated with the electronic content distribution campaign, the electronic content distribution message having a customized hyperlink including the globally unique identifier appended to a uniform resource locator (URL)/ transmitting the electronic content distribution message to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier / in response to the generated electronic content distribution message including the customized hyperlink being transmitted to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier, capturing interaction data indicative of a selection of the customized hyperlink by the user account/ receiving an authorization request corresponding to an electronic transaction, the authorization request comprising one or more of the globally unique identifier, the payment card number, and the cardholder identifier /attributing the electronic transaction to the electronic content distribution campaign based on matching data between the interaction data and the authorization request / associating the captured interaction data with the globally unique identifier. The Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “relate, in general, to the field of purchase transactions”, “attributing purchase transactions to electronic marketing campaigns’, “it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events”, “The targeted marketing campaign can include one or more products being advertised. A product identifier can be associated with each product being advertised via the targeted marketing campaign’, “With specific regard to Internet-based or electronic marketing, it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events, especially when those purchase events occur through different sales channels or occur subsequent to a consumer's initial exposure to marketing communications”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept — i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: generating a globally unique identifier based on a payment card number, a cardholder identifier associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements — see below, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 23 includes the additional element of a server/ processor / user device/ data storage, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Capturing data and redirecting via a hyperlink (‘wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Storing data (‘storing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor , the captured interaction data of a user’s interaction with the customized hyperlink in a data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server’) represents insignificant extra-solution activity — i.e. storing data. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Capturing data and redirecting via a hyperlink (‘wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Storing data (‘storing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor , the captured interaction data of a user’s interaction with the customized hyperlink in a data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server’) represents
insignificant extra-solution activity — i.e. storing data in a digital computing environment / on a server represents a well known and commonly used means of storing data , as known of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 23 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible. Independent claims 30, 37 are directed to a server and computer readable medium for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 23, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 23. The claims perform the claimed steps using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 30, 37 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 23. Remaining dependent claims 24-29, 31-36, 38-42 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further include the additional elements of a point of sale device, which represents a generic computing element; it is recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. , including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the pending claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
12/5/2025