DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 2/3/26. Claims 1-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Pages 5-6, Prong Two Step 2A:
The Applicant argues that claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
1) “Tying detection to specific on-device sources and computations that are not practicably performed mentally in the claimed context, e.g., programmatic queries of calendar/to-do/browser history and pattern analysis of locally stored transactions”.
The Examiner disagrees because the office action did not provide mental processes based subject matter eligibility analysis instead the rejection stated that the claim limitations are directed to organizing human activity with additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Per example, Local storage of context information associated with the financial transaction such as calendar/to-do/browser history does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because local storage is no more than “apply it” as it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Similarly, programmatic query of information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because programmatic is no more than “apply it” as it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
2) “Requiring retrieval from concrete network sources (merchant website and/or payment method purveyor/processor) and selection of a preferred payment mode with maximum discount/loyalty rewards”.
Retrieval of context information associated with the financial transaction does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because network resources are no more than “apply it” as it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”.
Payment mode selection merely furthers the abstract idea.
3) “Constraining presentation to sensor-triggered device states: actuation of an alarm application and/or detection, by the location detector, that the device is exiting the dwelling, accompanied by an audible alert and a wallet-addition reminder”.
Location detection related additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Per example, claim 1 recites the additional element of “detecting, by a location detector, the electronic device exiting a dwelling [… of] the electronic device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as the claim fails to recite the details of how the “location detector” detects “the electronic device exiting a dwelling”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Furthermore, audible alert related additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Per example, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “delivering, with an audio output device by the one or more processors, an audible alert”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
4: “Use of a particular machine (location detector 229) to detect exit events with GNSS/terrestrial fixes and to trigger the UI presentation”.
triggering UI presentation related additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Per example, claim 15 recites the additional elements of “cause the user interface to present […] the location detector detecting the electronic device exiting a dwelling […], [wherein …] electronically add […] to an electronic wallet application operating on the one or more processors”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “cause the user interface to present” and “the location detector detecting the electronic device exiting a dwelling” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to recite the details of how the “user interface” causes “to present” and the “location detector” detects “the electronic device exiting a dwelling”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Pages 6-7, Step 2B:
The Applicant argues that the additional elements are significantly more than the abstract idea because “improving device functioning and user interaction in context”.
The Examiner disagrees.
Similar to arguments for prong 2 Step 2A, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are merely “apply it” because “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), and/or the additional elements are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As such, the claim as whole recites an improvement to a business process not “device functioning”.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
102/103: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn
Reasons why References Do Not Teach the Claims
References of record are US 20160034864 A1 (Macrae) disclosing payment mode selection, US 20170193491 A1 (Phipps) disclosing enabling dynamic electronic checkins and US 20230394461 A1 (Giraudo) disclosing location-based transactions.
Macrae teaches,
retrieving, with a communication device of the electronic device, one or more forms of payment offered by the merchant from a remote electronic device across a network.
Phipps teaches,
wherein the detecting comprises querying, by the one or more processors, at least one of: a calendaring application operable on the one or more processors to detect a scheduled appointment stored in the calendaring application that identifies the merchant; an electronically stored to-do list from a memory of the electronic device to identify one or more to-do items stored in the memory that reference the merchant; an Internet search history of a web browsing application stored in the memory to identify a search history entry identifying the merchant; and/or past financial transactions made by an authorized user of the electronic device that are stored in the memory.
Macrae, Phipps and Giraudo, individually or in combination, do not teach:
detecting, with one or more processors of the electronic device, a prospective financial transaction with a merchant at a second location that is remote relative to a first location of the electronic device when the detecting is performed,
determining from the querying, by the one or more processors, a repeating pattern of one or more repeating financial transactions and predicting, by the one or more processors, another instance of the repeating pattern as the prospective financial transaction,
presenting, by the one or more processors on a user interface of the electronic device, the one or more payment modes offered by the merchant in an offered payment mode notification at the first location prior to the prospective financial transaction occurring, wherein the presenting: occurs at a predetermined time during the day corresponding with actuation, by the one or more processors, of an alarm using an alarm application operating on the one or more processors; and/or when detecting, by a location detector, the electronic device exiting a dwelling of an authorized user of the electronic device and wherein the presenting further comprises delivering, with an audio output device by the one or more processors, an audible alert.
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 1-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 1-14 and 19-20). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity, as a method of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A method in an electronic device, the method comprising:
detecting, with one or more processors of the electronic device, a prospective financial transaction with a merchant at a second location that is remote relative to a first location of the electronic device when the detecting is performed, wherein the detecting comprises querying, by the one or more processors, at least one of: a calendaring application operable on the one or more processors to detect a scheduled appointment stored in the calendaring application that identifies the merchant;
an electronically stored to-do list from a memory of the electronic device to identify one or more to-do items stored in the memory that reference the merchant;
an Internet search history of a web browsing application stored in the memory to identify a search history entry identifying the merchant; and/or
past financial transactions made by an authorized user of the electronic device that are stored in the memory;
determining from the querying, by the one or more processors, a repeating pattern of one or more repeating financial transactions and predicting, by the one or more processors, another instance of the repeating pattern as the prospective financial transaction;
retrieving, with a communication device of the electronic device, one or more forms of payment offered by the merchant from a remote electronic device across a network, wherein the retrieving comprises one or more of:
extracting, by the one or more processors using the communication device, data from a merchant website provided by the merchant;
extracting, by the one or more processors using the communication device, data from a payment method purveyor or payment mode processor; and
retrieving, with the communication device of the electronic device, a preferred form of payment accepted by the merchant offering one or more of a maximum discount and/or a maximum loyalty program reward in addition to the one or more forms of payment accepted by the merchant; and
presenting, by the one or more processors on a user interface of the electronic device, the one or more payment modes offered by the merchant in an offered payment mode notification at the first location prior to the prospective financial transaction occurring, wherein the presenting:
occurs at a predetermined time during the day corresponding with actuation, by the one or more processors, of an alarm using an alarm application operating on the one or more processors; and/or
when detecting, by a location detector, the electronic device exiting a dwelling of an authorized user of the electronic device and
wherein the presenting further comprises delivering, with an audio output device by the one or more processors, an audible alert.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“an electronic device”, “[detecting], with one or more processors of the electronic device, […] of the electronic device when the detecting is performed, wherein the detecting comprises [querying], by the one or more processors, at least one of: a calendaring application operable on the one or more processors to [… a scheduled appointment] stored in the calendaring application […]”, “an electronically stored [to-do list] from a memory of the electronic device [… one or more to-do items] stored in the memory […], “an Internet search history of a web browsing application stored in the memory […]”, “[… of] the electronic device that are stored in the memory. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[retrieving], with a communication device of the electronic device, […] from a remote electronic device across a network”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“extracting, by the one or more processors using the communication device, data from a merchant website […]” and “extracting, by the one or more processors using the communication device, data from a payment method purveyor or payment mode processor”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as the claim fails to recite the details of how “data from a merchant website” is extracted “by the one or more processors using the communication device” and the details of how “data from a payment method purveyor or payment mode processor” is extracted “by the one or more processors using the communication device”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[presenting], by the one or more processors on a user interface of the electronic device [… wherein the presenting: occurs …] corresponding with actuation, by the one or more processors, of an alarm using an alarm application operating on the one or more processors”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[when] detecting, by a location detector, the electronic device exiting a dwelling [… of] the electronic device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as the claim fails to recite the details of how the “location detector” detects “the electronic device exiting a dwelling”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[wherein the presenting …] delivering, with an audio output device by the one or more processors, an audible alert”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) 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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claims 15-18). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 15 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity, as a method of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
An electronic device, comprising:
a user interface;
a communication device;
a memory,
a location detector and one or more processors operable with the user interface, the location detector, the memory, and the communication device;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a prospective financial transaction with a merchant at a first location from a predictive source stored in the memory and while the electronic device is in a second location that is remote from the first location,
retrieve, using the communication device, one or more payment modes accepted by the merchant using electronic signals across a network, and
cause the user interface to present an offered payment mode notification identifying the one or more payment modes accepted by the merchant at the second location prior to the prospective financial transaction occurring and in response to the location detector detecting the electronic device exiting a dwelling located at the second location, wherein the offered payment mode notification comprises a reminder to electronically add the one or more payment modes accepted by the merchant to an electronic wallet application operating on the one or more processors.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“An electronic device, comprising”, “a user interface”, “a communication device”, “a memory”, “a location detector and one or more processors operable with the user interface, the location detector, the memory, and the communication device”, “wherein the one or more processors are configured to”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“wherein the one or more processors are configured to [… a predictive source] stored in the memory and while the electronic device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[retrieve], using the communication device, […] using electronic signals across a network”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“cause the user interface to present […] the location detector detecting the electronic device exiting a dwelling […], [wherein …] electronically add […] to an electronic wallet application operating on the one or more processors”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are no more than “apply it” as they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “cause the user interface to present” and “the location detector detecting the electronic device exiting a dwelling” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to recite the details of how the “user interface” causes “to present” and the “location detector” detects “the electronic device exiting a dwelling”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
(Step 2B) 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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, claim 3 recites “wherein the detecting the prospective financial transaction with the merchant comprises querying, by the one or more processors, the calendaring application to detect the scheduled appointment in a database of calendar events stored in the calendaring application that identifies the merchant”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[querying], by the one or more processors, the calendaring application […] in a database of […] stored in the calendaring application”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the detecting the prospective financial transaction with the merchant comprises receiving, with the communication device by the one or more processors, an electronic communication identifying both the scheduled appointment and the merchant”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[receiving], with the communication device by the one or more processors, an electronic communication”. The “electronic communication” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the merchant website provided by the merchant is selected from a pair of merchant websites by determining which of the pair of merchant websites has a greater access time”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“the merchant website provided by the merchant is selected from a pair of merchant websites by determining which of the pair of merchant websites has a greater access time”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to recite the details of how the “the pair of merchant websites has a greater access time” is determined and how the determination selects “the merchant website provided by the merchant … from a pair of merchant websites”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
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 do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Claims 13 and 17 recite “wherein the detecting, the electronic device exiting the dwelling of the authorized user of the electronic device comprises capturing location data from a constellation of one or more earth orbiting satellites, or from a network of terrestrial base stations when the electronic device exits the dwelling of the authorized user of the electronic device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“the detecting, the electronic device exiting the dwelling of the authorized user of the electronic device comprises capturing location data from a constellation of one or more earth orbiting satellites, or from a network of terrestrial base stations when the electronic device exits the dwelling of the authorized user of the electronic device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Claims 18 recites “wherein the predictive source comprises one of a calendaring application, an electronically stored to-do list, an Internet search history of a web browsing application, and/or past financial transactions made by an authorized user of the electronic device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[…] a calendaring application, an electronically stored […], […] of a web browsing application, and/or […] of the electronic device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of suggesting payment modes based on a context of a financial transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 16 and 19-20 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Reference made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, includes US 20230394461 A1 (Giraudo) disclosing location-based transactions.
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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights