DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Instant application is CON of US Patent No. 11,893,633 B2. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to a non-final Office action on 03/30/2026 amending claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20; canceling claims 3 and 10; and adding new claims 21-22. In light of Applicant's amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objections and § 101 rejection. Examiner has, however, maintained the previous double patenting rejection and established new a new § 101 rejection for claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, cancellations and adding of new claims, the instant rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner's Remarks
Double Patenting: Applicant is stating in page 9 of Applicant's Remarks:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under the non-statutory judicially created doctrine of double patenting over U.S. Pat. No. 11,893,633. Office Action at 12. Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be held in abeyance until the claims are determined to be otherwise allowable. Applicant will consider filing a Terminal Disclaimer after all other rejections are overcome.
In light of Applicant's statement, Examiner will maintain the previous double patenting rejection for newly amended claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, in the instant Office action.
Patent Eligibility under § 101: Applicant argues in pages 9-15 of Applicant's Remarks that newly amended claims are patent eligible under Step 2A – Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo Test. Examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant’s newly amended claims are still recited in high level of abstraction lacking details and specifics as to how a technological solution is carried out. For example, independent claims 1, 11, and 16, lack recitation regarding what data is used in training the machine learning (ML) model, and how the ML model is evolving. Applicant is invited to set up an interview with Examiner to discuss this matter further.
Prior art under § 102/§ 103: Prior art reference Cui (CN 107506444 A) discloses machine learning model trained on flight interruption data set. Further, prior art reference Biffle (WO 2005/077066 A2) discloses transaction data indicating card transaction associated with airline travel. Still further, prior art reference Scislowski (US 2020/0372536 A1) discloses detecting a current flight interruption associated with user. Cui, Biffle, and Scilowski – alone or in combination with each other – do not disclose the elements of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, as an ordered combination of steps.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) – 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,633 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are obvious over the reference claims.
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 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 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. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-2, 4-9, and 21-22, is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 11-15 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention. Still further, the claimed invention of claims 16-20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, however, recite an abstract idea of updating payment card spending configurations during flight interruptions. The creation of updating payment card spending configurations during flight interruptions, as recited in the independent claims 1, 11, and 16, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 11, and 16, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“detecting real-time flight status data indicating a current flight interruption associated with a user” (claims 1, 11, and 16);
“generating, based on a classification of one or more factors associated with the current flight interruption to a plurality of different classification categories indicating associations between past flight interruption data and associated historical user transaction data, classification data associated with the classification of the one or more factors” (claims 1, 11, and 16);
“predicting, based on inputting the classification data to a machine learning model trained to predict user spending limit configurations for detected flight interruptions based on the plurality of different classification categories, a user spending limit configuration to be applied during the current flight interruption to a card associated with the user” (claims 1, 11, and 16);
“comparing the user spending limit configuration with a consistency threshold based on the associated historical user transaction data” (claim 1);
“causing, based on the user spending limit configuration satisfying the consistency threshold, the user spending limit configuration to replace one or more user spending limit configurations of the card associated with the user” (claim 1);
“generating a monitoring task to monitor the current flight interruption, wherein the monitoring task causes, via communication with the one or more APIs, the card to reset to the one or more user spending limit configurations of the card based on detecting an end to the current flight interruption” (claim 1).
“comparing the predicted amount of available credit with a consistency threshold associated with the historical user transaction data, the predicted amount of available credit to be accessible during the current flight interruption satisfies the consistency threshold” (claim 11);
“causing, based on the predicted amount of available credit exceeding the consistency threshold, a current credit limit of the card associated with the user to be replaced with the predicted amount of available credit” (claim 11);
“generating a monitoring task to monitor the current flight interruption, wherein the monitoring task causes the card to reset to the current credit limit based on detecting an end to the current flight interruption” (claim 11);
“comparing the predicted set of transaction types with a consistency threshold based on the associated historical user transaction data, the predicted set of transaction types exceeds the consistency threshold” (claim 16);
“causing, based on the predicted set of authorized transaction types exceeding the consistency threshold, the predicted set of authorized transaction types to replace a current set of authorized transaction types of the card associated with the user” (claim 16); and
“generating a monitoring task to monitor the current flight interruption, wherein the monitoring task causes the card to reset to the current set of authorized transaction types based on detecting an end to the current flight interruption” (claim 16).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 11 and 16 recite additional elements:
“a computing device” (claims 1 and 16);
“one or more application programming interface(s) (APIs)” (claims 1, 11, and 16);
“one or more processors” (claims 11 and 16);
“one or more memories storing instructions” (claim 11);
“a user device” (claim 11); and
“a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” (claim 16).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, the following additional limitation recites insignificant post solution activity:
“sending, to the user, a notification of the predicted amount of available credit to replace the current credit limit of the card associated with the user” (claim 11).
This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. (Note: there are no additional limitations in independent claims 1 and 16). The additional elements/ limitation of independent claims 11 and 16 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 11 and 16, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1, 11 and 16 (see above under Step 2A – Prong 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (note: claim 1 does not have additional elements). The Applicant’s Specification describes these additional elements in following terms:
[31] The computing device 200 may include a processor 203 for controlling overall operation of the computing device 200 and its associated components, including RAM 205, ROM 207, input/output device 209, communication interface 211, and/or memory 215. A data bus may interconnect processor(s) 203, RAM 205, ROM 207, memory 215, I/O device 209, and/or communication interface 211. In some embodiments, computing device 200 may represent, be incorporated in, and/or include various devices such as a desktop computer, a computer server, a mobile device, such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, any other types of mobile computing devices, and the like, and/or any other type of data processing device.
[32] Input/output (I/O) device 209 may include a microphone, keypad, touch screen, and/or stylus through which a user of the computing device 200 may provide input, and may also include one or more of a speaker for providing audio output and a video display device for providing textual, audiovisual, and/or graphical output. Software may be stored within memory 215 to provide instructions to processor 203 allowing computing device 200 to perform various actions. Memory 215 may store software used by the computing device 200, such as an operating system 217, application programs 219, and/or an associated internal database 221. The various hardware memory units in memory 215 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Memory 215 may include one or more physical persistent memory devices and/or one or more non-persistent memory devices. Memory 215 may include, but is not limited to, random access memory (RAM) 205, read only memory (ROM) 207, electronically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that may be used to store the desired information and that may be accessed by processor 203.
[108] One or more aspects discussed herein may be embodied in computer-usable or readable data and/or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices as described herein. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and the like that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types when executed by a processor in a computer or other device. The modules may be written in a source code programming language that is subsequently compiled for execution, or may be written in a scripting language such as (but not limited to) HTML or XML. The computer executable instructions may be stored on a computer readable medium such as a hard disk, optical disk, removable storage media, solid-state memory, RAM, and the like. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, the functionality of the program modules may be combined or distributed as desired in various embodiments. In addition, the functionality may be embodied in whole or in part in firmware or hardware equivalents such as integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), and the like. [].
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the additional limitation of “sending” in claim 16 amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason this additional limitation is not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitation of “sending” information was considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, it is also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitation of independent claim 16 “sends” information over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized “sending” information function as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional elements/limitation of independent claims 11 and 16 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitation add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 16, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2, 4-9, and 21-22, depend on independent claim 1; dependent claims 12-15 depend on independent claim 11; and dependent claims 17-20 depend on independent claim 16. The elements in dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12-15, and 17-22, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the past flight interruption data for the user is further based on data that maps past flight interruptions to one or more affected users” (claim 2: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the one or more user spending limit configurations comprise one or more of an amount of available credit or a set of transaction types” (claim 4: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“selecting, based on the current flight interruption, at least one historical record of the associated historical user transaction data; and determining, based on the at least one historical record, the one or more user spending limit configurations” (claim 5: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“generating the classification data associated with the classification of the one or more factors is further based on at least one of a date, a time, a departure location, or a destination location of the current flight interruption” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“notifying the user after causing the user spending limit configuration to replace the one or more user spending limit configurations of the card” (claim 7: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the past flight interruption data and the associated historical user transaction data indicate past flight interruptions that are within a degree of similarity to the current flight interruption” (claim 8: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the degree of similarity comprises a weighted sum of similarity levels, each similarity level being between a factor of the current flight interruption and a factor of the past flight interruption” (claim 9: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the past flight interruption data and the historical user transaction data indicate past flight interruptions that are within a degree of similarity to the current flight interruption” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the degree of similarity comprises a weighted sum of similarity levels, each similarity level being between a factor of the current flight interruption and a factor of the past flight interruption” (claim 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“selecting, based on the current flight interruption, at least one historical record of the historical user transaction data; and determining, based on the at least one historical record, the predicted amount of available credit” (claim 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“generating the predicted amount of available credit further based on at least one of a date, a time, a departure location, or a destination location of the current flight interruption” (claim 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the past flight interruption data and the associated historical user transaction data indicate past flight interruptions that are within a degree of similarity to the current flight interruption” (claim 17: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the degree of similarity comprises a weighted sum of similarity levels, each similarity level being between a factor of the current flight interruption and a factor of the past flight interruption” (claim 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“selecting, based on the current flight interruption, at least one historical record of the associated historical user transaction data; and determining, based on the at least one historical record, the predicted set of authorized transaction types” (claim 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“generating the predicted set of authorized transaction types is further based on one or more of a date of the current flight interruption, a time of the current flight interruption, a departure location associated with the current flight interruption, or a destination location associated with the current flight interruption” (claim 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the one or more user spending limit configurations include a configuration indicating an increase in an amount of available credit; the configuration indicating the increase in the amount of available credit satisfies the consistency threshold; and causing the user spending limit configuration to replace a current spending limit configuration is based on the configuration indicating an increase in an amount of available credit” (claim 21: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“predicting the one or more user spending limit configurations comprises predicting a set area of authorized transactions associated with a location of the user; and the set area of authorized transactions is based on the location of the user, the past flight interruption data and the associated historical user transaction data” (claim 22: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12-15, and 17-22, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-22, are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bankreira (US 2021/0209521 A1) discloses: “The present invention finds application in the sector of data management systems and particularly has as its object a method for identifying inefficiencies related to scheduled flights, such as delays and cancellations, in order to simplify the management phases of any refunds in favor of passengers.”
D’Angelo (IT 202100018188 A1) discloses: “The present invention finds application in the sector of data management systems and particularly has as its object a method for identifying inefficiencies related to scheduled flights, such as delays and cancellations, in order to simplify the management phases of any refunds in favor of passengers.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights