DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 3/30/26, wherein:
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-22 are currently pending;
Claims 9 and 12 are cancelled.
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 .
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, 11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 11 and 17 recite a system and a computer-readable media, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The limitations of
obtaining, by a service provider, first merchant information associated with a plurality of onboarded merchants, wherein individuals of the plurality of onboarded merchants completed respective onboarding processes resulting in (i) registration with the service provider and (ii) access to at least one merchant service of a plurality of merchant services offered by the service provider to respective onboarded merchants;
obtaining, intent data associated with the plurality of onboarded merchants, wherein the intent data for an individual onboarded merchant of the plurality of onboarded merchants comprises an indication of a subset of merchant services of the plurality of merchant services that the individual onboarded merchant uses or indicated interest in using during a respective onboarding process;
outputs a prediction of one or more merchant services of the plurality of merchant services that an unregistered merchant intends to use;
receiving, an indication that the unregistered merchant has initiated an onboarding process for the unregistered merchant with the service provider via a user interface associated with the service provider;
determining, second merchant information associated with the unregistered merchant (claims 11 and 17 only);
sending, a request to the unregistered merchant for second merchant information associated with the unregistered merchant (claim 1 only);
responsive to the request, receiving, the second merchant information (claim 1 only);
based at least in part on the second merchant information and during the onboarding process for the unregistered merchant, determining, the one or more merchant services of the plurality of merchant services that the unregistered merchant is predicted to intend to use;
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The invention is directed to merchant onboarding/registering a merchant with a service provider. Specification ¶11-12. This is a business interaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more server computing devices (claims 1, 11, 17), one or more processors (claims 11 and 17), a merchant computing device, and one or more computer-readable media (claims 11 and 17). The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the obtaining, receiving, sending, and outputting limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
The limitations reciting:
training, by the service provider, using training data and via a machine learning mechanism, a machine learning model, wherein the training data comprises the first merchant information and the intent data, wherein the machine learning model outputs a prediction of one or more merchant services of the plurality of merchant services provided by the service provider that a potential merchant intends to use, and wherein the machine learning model is retrained using updated training data at a predetermined frequency;
based at least in part on the second merchant information and the one or more merchant services that the unregistered merchant is predicted to intend to use after onboarding, automatically reordering by the one or more server computing devices during the onboarding process for the unregistered merchant, one or more graphical elements of the user interface, wherein an updated order of the one or more graphical elements is customized for the potential merchant based at least in part on the one or more merchant services
provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (training a machine learning model and reordering information so that it is customized for the user). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): 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 element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the obtaining, receiving, sending, and outputting limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, and identifying presenting offers as WURC, as recognized by OIP Techs). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-22 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 11, and 17 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-22 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 18-222 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11, and 17 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11, and 17; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 6 and 15 further recites the additional elements of the machine learning model comprises a first machine learning model, the training data comprises first training data, the machine learning mechanism comprises a first machine learning mechanism, and the computer-implemented method further comprising: training, by the service provider, using second training data and via the first machine learning mechanism or a second machine learning mechanism, a second machine learning model, wherein the training data comprises the first merchant information and the intent data, wherein the second machine learning model outputs a user experience that encourages completion of the onboarding process, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of a website of the potential merchant, a social media platform, a reservation management platform, a menu management platform, or an ecommerce platform, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
WITHDRAWN, in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
WITHDRAWN, in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-22.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is You et al. (US 20170243271). You discloses a system for inferring service providers and inferring service requests which presents information on a user interface (abstract and [0020]).
DeRoos et al. (US 20130036367) is also closely related prior art of record. DeRoos discloses a system for updating a user interface (abstract). DeRoos discloses an updated order of the one or more graphical elements is customized for the potential merchant based at least in part on the one or more merchant services (DeRoos [0008][0010][0019][0045][0050]-[0054]).
Referring to claim 1:
The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, by one or more server computing devices of a service provider, first merchant information associated with a plurality of onboarded merchants, wherein individuals of the plurality of onboarded merchants completed respective onboarding processes resulting in (i) registration with the service provider and (ii) access to at least one merchant service of a plurality of merchant services offered by the service provider to respective onboarded merchants;
obtaining, by the one or more server computing devices intent data associated with the plurality of onboarded merchants, wherein the intent data for an individual onboarded merchant of the plurality of onboarded merchants comprises an indication of a subset of merchant services of the plurality of merchant services that the individual onboarded merchant uses or indicated interest in using during a respective onboarding process;
training, by the one or more server computing devices using training data and via a machine learning mechanism, a machine learning model, wherein the training data comprises the first merchant information and the intent data, wherein the machine learning model outputs a prediction of one or more merchant services of the plurality of merchant services that an unregistered merchant intends to use, and wherein the machine learning model is retrained using updated training data at a predetermined frequency;
receiving, by the one or more server computing devices an indication that the unregistered merchant has initiated an onboarding process for the unregistered merchant with the service provider via a user interface associated with the service provider;
sending, by the one or more server computing devices a request to a merchant computing device of the unregistered merchant for second merchant information associated with the unregistered merchant;
responsive to the request, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and via the merchant computing device, the second merchant information;
based at least in part on the second merchant information and the machine learning model and during the onboarding process for the unregistered merchant, determining, by the one or more server computing devices the one or more merchant services of the plurality of merchant services that the unregistered merchant is predicted to intend to use; and
based at least in part on the second merchant information and the one or more merchant services that the unregistered merchant is predicted to intend to use after onboarding, automatically reordering, by the one or more server computing devices during the onboarding process for the unregistered merchant, one or more graphical elements of the user interface, wherein an updated order of the one or more graphical elements is customized based at least in part on the one or more merchant services.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art.
Independent claims 11 and 17 include limitations similar to claim 1, above, and are likewise considered to contain similar subject matter distinguished from prior art.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for providing support for the claim amendments.
35 USC 112
The previous rejections are withdrawn in response to the amendments.
35 USC 101
The claims are directed to statutory categories (step 1)
Examiner has no comment.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A)
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in that the claims “improve user interfaces associated with online registration.” Remarks 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by Applicant, the claims include a machine learning model to predict what services an unregistered merchant is going to want to be provided by the service provider, and reorders graphical elements in the user interface accordingly. Applicant alleges a number of technical benefits supported by the Specification, including an improved user experience, enabling meaningful interactions, decreasing the amount of time and number of interactions required, reducing errors, increasing the rate at which potential merchants are converted to merchants, as well as a decrease in unnecessary navigation (which is not supported by the Specification). However, none of these benefits are a technical improvement to the user interface. These are, at most, customer, or business, benefits.
Applicant refers to the Core Wireless case, in which the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers. In Core Wireless, the Specification supported the invention as an improved user interface for electronic devices with small screens. Because small screens required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired functionality, the process was difficult. In Core Wireless, the invention considerably improved the speed of the user’s navigation – rather than paging through multiple screens of options, the user needed only three steps to reach the desired functionality. In other words, there was a technical problem – small screens have limited real estate and required many steps to get to desired functionality, which was solved by a technical solution. This is not the case for the instant invention. There is no evidence that the user previously had to use a small screen and was required to drill down many layers to get to desired functionality, or that any other technical problem is overcome by the instant invention.
Applicant argues that ordering graphical elements inherently results in improvement to navigation and information that has been determined to be of most interest to the user. Remarks 17-18. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this is an improvement to technology. Ordering elements on a page according to a user’s interest, without more, is an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that the ARP decision in Ex Parte Desjardins is applicable, stating that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology. Remarks 18. Applicant argues that the invention has shown improvements in computer functionality from “software improvements that decrease the amount of time and number of interactions required to register a potential merchant with a service provider, which can increase the rate at which unregistered merchants are converted to onboarded merchants and decrease unnecessary navigation in looking for certain information.” Remarks 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees that these alleged improvements provide improvements to computer technology. None of these improvements indicate an improvement in the computer itself, but at most, indicate an improvement in a business method.
The Claims do not recite an inventive concept (Step 2B)
Applicant argues that the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea, arguing that the claims recite additional elements that provide technical improvements (as stated in Step 2A). Remarks 19. For the reasons stated above, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues that several aspects of the claims are “not conventional” and represent an inventive concept, individually and when taken as a combination. Remarks 19-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is unsupported attorney argument and is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the “office fails to provide a factual basis for treating many of the claim features as WURC, such as the machine learning features (including the training and retraining steps) and the determining of merchant services using the machine learning model.” Remarks 20-21. Examiner respectfully disagrees that these features are treated as WURC. They are addressed above as additional elements.
35 USC 103
The rejection has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights