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 .
Application Continuity
This application is a continuation (CON) of U.S. application 17/990,972, now US Patent 11,893,596, which is a CON of 14/408,199 or US patent 11,538,055.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed 07/14/25 is proper and has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/10/2026 has been entered.
1) Claims amended:
(1) Independent claims: 1.
(2) Dependent claims: 4.
2) Claims canceled: 21-28.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending. They comprise of 1 group:
1) Method1: 1-10, and
* Article1: 11, and
As of 06/10/26, independent claim 1 is as follows:
(Currently Amended) A method of improving security and accuracy of a verification of a credit card transaction by linking sensors to digital payment gateways, the method comprising steps that are performed by one or more processors executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer- readable memory, the steps comprising:
[1] receiving, by a donation services server comprising the one or more processors, information from one or more sensors in electronic communication with merchant point of sale (POS) hardware at a retail brick and mortar geolocation of a merchant, for the credit card transaction with the merchant that is conducted on an account issued to an account holder, wherein the information for the credit card transaction is derived from:
(a) interchange data for setting an interchange rate for the credit card transaction on the account of the account holder, wherein the interchange data comprises one or more of:
(i) data indicating whether a portable electronic storage device storing an identifier for the account was physically present with the merchant,
(ii) data indicating whether the transaction is not a Card Not Present (CNP) transaction,
(iii) data indicating whether a card verification value was used,
(iv) data indicating whether a Personal Identification Number (PIN) was entered, or
(v) data indicating whether signature identification was used for cardholder identification;
(b) a card not present indication for the credit card transaction derived from the information for the credit card transaction; and
(c) a geolocation of the merchant point of sale (POS) hardware of the merchant at which the credit card transaction was conducted;
[2] geolocating, by the donation services server, a web enabled mobile computing device that:
(i) has a wireless communication technology to wirelessly communicate information stored therein; and
(ii) stores an identifier for the account on which the credit card transaction was conducted;
[3] determining, by the donation services server using the interchange data and the geolocation of the web enabled mobile computing device, a probability that a tangible medium including the account of the account holder was physically present when the credit card transaction was conducted, wherein the determining comprises using at least one of:
(a) the interchange data for setting an interchange rate for the credit card transaction;
(b) the card not present indication derived from the information for the credit card transaction; and
(c) a wireless communication with the web enabled mobile computing device, wherein the wireless communication confirms that the web enabled mobile computing device storing the identifier for the account was co-located with the merchant POS hardware at the time of the credit card transaction;
wherein an interchange center system within an interchange center [4] provides:
on-line and off-line transaction processing for issuers and acquirers; and
a system for clearing and settlement that settles previously authorized transactions, wherein a bridge forms an interchange between the clearing and settlement system and associated processing centers for authorization and clearing of the transactions;
[5] upon determining, using the interchange data and the processor, that the probability exceeds a predetermined threshold indicating that the tangible medium was physically present, [6] receiving, by the donation services server, information for the credit card transaction including the date and the time, a currency amount, and an identifier for the merchant;
for the credit card transaction for which the date and time of the credit card transaction are within a predetermined time period:
for each said identifier for the merchant:
[7] deriving, by the donation services server, the sum of the currency amounts for the predetermined time period;
[8] using the identifier for the merchant to access a database to retrieve:
(i) the logical address for the merchant corresponding to the identifier for the merchant; and
(ii) a business rule for making a contribution corresponding to a donor identifier having a logical address, wherein the contribution is a function, at least in part, of the sum of the currency amounts; and
[9] deriving, by the donation services server, using the business rule and the sum of the currency amounts, the contribution for the predetermined time period; and
[10] transmitting, by the donation services server, the derived contribution for the predetermined time period to the logical address for the merchant corresponding to the identifier for the merchant.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[10] are added to the beginning of each element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. (1) Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “the sum of the currency amounts” in step [7] There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(2) Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “the logical address for the merchant…” in step [8] (i) above. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In independent claim 1, the result of step [9] “deriving, … of the currency amount, the contribution…” which results in “a derived contribution” should be changed to “a derived contribution amount” to be consistent with the “sum of the currency amounts.” In other word, adding the word “amount” after the word “contribution” is recommended to improve clarity.
In independent claim 1, step [3] of “determining …a probability… wireless communication confirms that …the mobile computing device storing the identifier for the account was co-located with the merchant POS hardware at the time of the credit card transaction.” It’s not clear how the co-located feature is carried out?
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 1-11 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.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-11:
Claim categories:
Method1: 1-11.
Analysis of Step 1:
Method: claims 1-11 are directed to a method for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity, comprising the steps of:
[1] receiving information about a credit card transaction,
[2] obtain the location of the mobile phone that conducts the transaction…”,
[3] determining a probability that the transaction was carried out physically at the merchant store,
[4] if the probability exceeds a threshold, receiving additional information about the transaction such as date, time, currency amount, and an identifier of the merchant,
[5] deriving a sum of currency amount for a predetermined time period,
[6] deriving a contribution amount, and
[7] transmitting the derived contribution data for the pre-determined time period to the merchant address.
(Step 1: yes).
Thus, the claims 1-11 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity comprising the cited steps above which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities and business relations surrounding a business transaction, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity associated with the transaction by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receive info. (data) of a xsaction. Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] receive location info of the mobile Data gathering, IE-SA.
device involved the transaction.
[3] det. Probability xsaction locally? Method of organizing human activities (MoOHA), determine location of a business transaction.
[4] if probability exceeds a threshold, MoOHA/analysis/compare values for business action.
Obtain more Xsaction infor.
[5] deriving sum of Xsaction amount MOHA for business transaction.
For a period time.
[6] deriving a contribution amount. MoOHA for contributing a portion of xsaction to charity.
[7] Transmit the contribution (data) to… Data (result) transmit, IE-SA.
Steps [1], [2] and [7] are data gathering, data displaying on the mobile device, and data transmitting steps, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) steps.
Steps [3], [4], [5], and [6] are routine business activities for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity associated with the transaction.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a platform app at a mobile device for carrying out business transaction, sensors, POS hardware, credit card, etc. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice of a well known business transaction or funds transfer mechanism) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[7] above.
Steps [1], [2] and [7] are data gathering, data displaying on the mobile device, and data transmitting steps, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) steps.
Steps [3], [4], [5], and [6] are routine business activities for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity associated with the transaction.
The means to carry out these steps appear to be generic computer device with generic software elements.
The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. The generic computer components, mobile computing device, sensors, POS hardware, and credit card, etc., merely perform generic computer functions: means for receiving information, geolocating a mobile device, means for ascertaining a medium, means for receiving information, means for deriving a value, means for using an identifier to access a database, and means for deriving a value (for donation).
Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software application for carrying out a business transaction on respective account issued to respective consumer account holder by respective issuers and a determination of a donation amount to an organization associated with the transaction. The mobile device displaying features (GUI) is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity and has little impact on the scope of the claims. Also, the sensors, POS hardware, credit card, etc. are generic and conventional devices for carrying out business transaction. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., organizing human activities for carrying out a business transaction and a determination of a donation amount to a charity organization, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [3]-[6], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the steps for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity. In other word, the scope and the steps are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-3 (part of 21 above), which deal with further details of the received information, identifier, this further limits the abstract idea of the business transaction, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 21 above), which deals with further details of the account holder information and type of organization, this further limits the abstract idea of the business transaction, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 4 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 21 above), which deals with further details of the business rule for donation, this further limits the abstract idea of the business transaction of donation, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 6-7 (part of 21 above), which deal with further details of the received information, these further limit the abstract idea of the business transaction, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 6-7 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 8-9 (part of 21 above), which deal with further details of the received information, identification data and verification data, these further limit the abstract idea of the business transaction, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 8-9 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 21 above), which deals with further details of the account holder information, this further limits the abstract idea of the business transaction, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 10 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (1) Applicant’s comment on page 11:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s comment that the current claims improve the security and accuracy of credit card transaction verification is noted but not persuasive because steps [1]-[7] above do not appear to improve the credit card transaction verification by making it safer or reducing fraud due to improper use or access or wrong identity or thieves. The steps above appear to deal with verifying the transaction occurs in a retail brick and mortar geolocation of a merchant. Once the transaction occurs in a retail shop is verified, then make a contribution amount to charity based on the pre-determined rule of contribution.
(2) Applicant’s comment on page 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
462
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s comments are not persuasive because it’s not clear how the claims are directed to specific technical improvements to how computers or networks operate? The claimed steps do not appear to improve how computers and networks operate. It’s not clear how the claims improves the functioning of a technology? What is the “technology” that the current claims improve? The elements “(2) Geolocating…” and (3) “Using a probability” above do not appear to improve any specific technology.
(3) Applicant’s comments in “B”, page 12, are noted but the “particular machines” as cited in (1)-(4) are considered “field-of-use” limitation for a marketing strategy of incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by donating a portion of the transaction cost to the consumer’s charity and reducing the loss of business due to online business, see the specification, par. [0008]. What specific technology that the claimed steps [1]-[7] are improving?
(4) Applicant’s comments in “C”, page 13, are noted but the comparison of similarity to BASCOM Global Internet Services. and “DDR Holdings are not persuasive because these cases are “necessarily rooted in computer technology” and the claims address the problems specifically arising in the realm of computer network. The current claims are not rooted in computer technology” and the claims do not address the problems specifically arising in the realm of computer network but more of business problems.
(5) Applicant’s comments in “Step 2B”, (1), (2) and (3) on pages 13-14, are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth in item (3) above.
(6) Applicant’s comments in “Comparison to Relevant Cases” on page 14 are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth in item (4) above.
(7) Applicant’s comments in “Comparison to Relevant Cases” on page 14, Core Wireless Licensing case has been addressed in the Final Rejection of 10/20/2025.
(8) As shown in the specification, paragraph [0011], a summary of the application indicates that the goal of the claims is for incenting consumers to conduct in-store transactions with merchants by making a contribution to charity organization.
PNG
media_image3.png
306
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
264
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
References Cited
Claim for a method comprising a plurality of steps, wherein the steps include for each transaction with a merchant that is conducted on an account issued to a consumer account holder as shown in (1) Method1 claim 1 above, is neither anticipated by, nor obvious in view of,
Name Publications:
1) HAMMAD et al. US Pub 2012/0.284.187, in view of
2) TORREYSON ET AL. US Pub 2010/0.258.620, and
3) HUNTER et al. US Patent 6,850,901, and
4) GRIGG et al. US Pub 2013/0.046.635, and
5) RUSHTON et al. US Pub 2006/0.122.856.
since claimed invention, which teaches:
[2] geolocating, by the donation services server, a web enabled mobile computing device that:
(i) has a wireless communication technology to wirelessly communicate information stored therein; and (ii) stores an identifier for the account on which the credit card transaction was conducted;
[3] determining, by the donation services server using the interchange data and the geolocation of the web enabled mobile computing device, a probability that a tangible medium including the account of the account holder was physically present when the credit card transaction was conducted, wherein the determining comprises using at least one of:
(a) the interchange data for setting an interchange rate for the credit card transaction;
(b) the card not present indication derived from the information for the credit card transaction; and (c) a wireless communication with the web enabled mobile computing device, wherein the wireless communication confirms that the web enabled mobile computing device storing the identifier for the account was co-located with the merchant POS hardware at the time of the credit card transaction; wherein an interchange center system within an interchange center [4] provides:
on-line and off-line transaction processing for issuers and acquirers; and
a system for clearing and settlement that settles previously authorized transactions, wherein a bridge forms an interchange between the clearing and settlement system and associated processing centers for authorization and clearing of the transactions;
[5] upon determining, using the interchange data and the processor, that the probability exceeds a predetermined threshold indicating that the tangible medium was physically present, [6] receiving, by the donation services server, information for the credit card transaction including the date and the time, a currency amount, and an identifier for the merchant;
for the credit card transaction for which the date and time of the credit card transaction are within a predetermined time period:
for each said identifier for the merchant:
[7] deriving, by the donation services server, the sum of the currency amounts for the predetermined time period;
[8] using the identifier for the merchant to access a database to retrieve:
(i) the logical address for the merchant corresponding to the identifier for the merchant; and
(ii) a business rule for making a contribution corresponding to a donor identifier having a logical address, wherein the contribution is a function, at least in part, of the sum of the currency amounts; and
[9] deriving, by the donation services server, using the business rule and the sum of the currency amounts, the contribution for the predetermined time period; and
which references neither disclose nor suggest.
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 6:30-4:30 PM ET.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
