CTFR 18/394,350 CTFR 92928 DETAILED ACTION Acknowledgements This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Mar. 25, 2026, and is made Final . This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082. Interviews Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when sending the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing. Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably , by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice . If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent request when practicable. An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged , because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR. After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested . For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial. The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Feb. 23, 2026, was filed after the first Office action on the merits but before final action and contained the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). Therefore, the IDS is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered. Claim Status The status of claims is as follows: Claims 29–44 are currently pending and examined with Claims 29 and 35 in independent form. Claims 29, 33, 35, and 39 are presently amended. Claims 40–44 are presently added. No Claims are presently cancelled. Response to Amendment Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Dec. 22, 2023, as amended by preliminary amendment filed Mar. 20, 2024, [“ Applicant’s Specification ”] and accepted for examination. Response to Arguments 35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument Applicant argues at Step 2B that amended Claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. Specifically, Applicant walks through the technical solution using verbatim language of the specification. Applicant’s Reply at 10–12 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 29, 37, 45, 46, 47). Then, argues that “claim 29 differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted in transactions to allow for transactions which are actually hands-free and secure.” Applicant’s Reply at 12. Last, Applicant analogizes Claims 20 to USPTO Example 35 and argues like Example 35, the claims here in their ordered combination are significantly more that any alleged exception. Applicant’s Reply at 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees . Applicant’s Step 2B argument relies on a technical solution recited in the specification but not in independent claims. For example, from Applicant’s Argument at p. 10 (citing Spec. ¶ 29), the technical solution requires, for example, a “merchant system register[ing] with an account management system,” “one or more beacon devices,” a “user … sign[ing] into the payment application via the user computing device,” and the constraint on the account management system pushing facial or audio templates to the merchant POS based on “computing devices in network range of the merchant beacon device and who are signed in to the payment application.” Spec. ¶ 29. Independent claims merely recite generic wireless broadcasting and data exchanges between conventional computer components. Therefore, the alleged technical solution (improvement) to computer functionality is not recited by independent claims as contemplated by MPEP 2106.05(a) at Step 2A, and does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept at Step 2B. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument 07-38-01 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 15–16 , filed Mar. 25, 2026 , with respect to Claims 29–39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 29–39 has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 29–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Analysis Step 1 : Claims 29–44 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 29–34 and 42–44 recite “A computer program product, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage device having computer-executable program instructions embodied thereon” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.” Claims 35–41 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Representative Claim Claim 35 is representative [“Rep. Claim 35”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations 1 and underline , as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception: [A] 35. A system to identify user accounts , comprising: a storage device of a merchant computing system ; and a processor of the merchant computing system communicatively coupled to the storage device , wherein the processor executes application code instructions that are stored in the storage device to cause the merchant computing system to: [B] receive, from an account management system , a merchant identifier; [C] broadcast the merchant identifier at a regular interval via a wireless communication device at a physical merchant location; [D] receive , from the account management system in response to the account management system receiving the merchant identifier from a user computing device that received the merchant identifier from the broadcast of the wireless communication device at a first time, user identification data prior to a user initiating a transaction with a point-of-sale device at the physical merchant location subsequent to the first time, the user identification data being associated with a user identifier of a user account for the user within the account management system , the user account storing a payment account identifier of a payment account of the user for a payment processing system ; [E] select the user identification data associated with the user in response to characteristics associated with the user when initiating the transaction at the point-of-sale device subsequent to the first time matching the user identification data associated with the user and received from the account management system ; [F] generate a transaction request , the transaction request comprising the user identification data selected and transaction data for the transaction; [G] communicate , to the account management system , the transaction request for the transaction; [H] receive , from the account management system , an authorization for the transaction subsequent to communicating the transaction request to the account management system , the authorization including a reference number; [I] communicate a settlement request directly, without any further input from the account management system , to a payment processing system in response to receiving the authorization for the transaction, the settlement request including the reference number for the authorization and a request to transfer funds associated with the transaction; and [J] receive , from the payment processing system , the funds associated with the transaction, wherein the funds are transferred from the payment processing system to an account associated with the merchant computing system . Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception. Step 2A, Prong One : Rep. Claim 35 recites “receive … the funds associated with the transaction, wherein the funds are transferred … to an account associated with the merchant …, in Limitation J , which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because “receiv[ing] … funds associated with the transaction,” recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–I are the required steps to “receive … funds associated with the transaction,” and therefore, recite the same exception. Id. Step 2A, Prong Two : The additional elements identified in Rep. Claim 35, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold , supra . The additional elements are: A system comprising: a storage device and processor of a merchant computing system ; application code instructions; an account management system; a wireless communication device; a user computing device; a point-of-sale device; and a payment processing system. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a) . A claim improves technology only when it recites a specific improvement to the way a computer itself operates, not merely the application of an existing process using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Improving security can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem.” CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC , 15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding eligibility at Alice Step Two where the claimed ordered combination recited an unconventional sequence of activating and deactivating an authentication function to prevent hacking and unauthorized access). Here, however, the claimed additional elements do not recite any comparable security protocol. The claimed elements are generic computing components (servers, POS devices, mobile/user devices, and networks) that are used in their ordinary roles to send, receive, and process transaction, authorization, and settlement data in a payment system. Spec. ¶¶ 50–58, 53–68, 70–73, 81, 225–233. The specification describes conventional electronic payment arrangements where consumers perform payment card transactions or NFC and where third-party payment systems, issuers, and payment processors exchange transaction and authorization data. Spec. ¶¶ 3–5. Implementing these commercial transactions with generic computer components does not by itself reflect a specific improvement in the way a computer operates, when the technical solution recited in the specification is not recited in the claims as explained in the “Response to Arguments” point heading above. The specification describes the advantages of the described system primarily in terms of user convenience and security in hands-free transactions and protection of account identifiers from merchants and from having an account management system named in transaction records. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 47. These advantages arise from who is allowed to see which data and which party is present in the settlement communications and identified on transaction records. They are high-level business/security outcomes of the payment process and not a new authentication algorithm, cryptographic method, or that changes how computers themselves operate, as in CosmoKey . Spec. ¶¶ 50, 51, 58, 63–68, 73, 81, 225–233. The specification does not describe any improvement to validation algorithms, image analysis methods, network communication protocols, encryption, geolocation processing, display technology, rendering algorithms, or computer architecture. Rather, these aspects are treated as conventional and implemented using any suitable” hardware or software. Spec. ¶¶ 50, 51, 58, 63–68, 73, 81, 225–233. Additionally, key aspects of Applicant’s asserted technical solution for security and privacy in the specification are not recited in independent claims. For example, a merchant system that registers with an account management system; installation of merchant beacon devices that broadcast a merchant beacon device identifier, user computing devices that are in network range of the merchant beacon device and signed-in to a payment application, and an account management system transmitting a facial or audio template or challenges/responses to the POS and maintaining a current customer log that is updated as user devices enter or leave beacon range. Spec. ¶¶ 29, 33–36, 63, 133–138. Because these technical details are not actually claimed, they cannot supply a specific non-conventional security improvement analogous to that in CosmoKey . Accordingly, while CosmoKey confirms that an improvement in computer security can, in some instances, supply an inventive concept, it does not apply here because the present independent claims do not recite a particular security technique that changes how computers or networks operate. Any security or privacy benefits described in the specification arise from business choices about which parties participate in authorization versus settlement and which identifiers appear in records, rather than from improvements to the operation of the computer systems themselves. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea with a particular machine. Although the claims recite specific hardware components (i.e., A system comprising: a storage device and processor of a merchant computing system ; application code instructions; an account management system; a wireless communication device; a user computing device; a point-of-sale device; and a payment processing system ), these components are recited at a high functional level and perform only their generic functions of receiving, transmitting, storing, and processing data. Spec. ¶¶ 50–58, 53–68, 70–73, 81, 225–233. A machine is “particular” only when it imposes a meaningful limit on the claims scope. MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, any general-purpose servers, POS terminals, user devices, and networks would satisfy the claim’s hardware requirements, which confirms that the hardware components are generic rather than “particular.” MPEP § 2106.05(b). The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f) . Regarding the additional elements, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them with specificity beyond exemplary language or describes them as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. The specification’s own broad, exemplary characterization confirms that these components are not described in a manner that would impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. , 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers , 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g. , Spec. ¶ 227 (“The processor 2010 may be a general purpose processor”); ¶ 80 (“the user computing device 110, the merchant beacon device 120 , the merchant point of sale device 130, the payment processing system 140, the issuer system 150, and the account management system 160 illustrated in Figure 1 can have any of several other suitable computer system configurations. For example, a user computing device 110 embodied as a mobile phone or handheld computer may or may not include all the components described above.”); ¶ 236 (“one or more aspects of embodiments described herein may be performed by hardware, software, or a combination thereo f, as may be embodied in one or more computing systems.”); ¶ 239 (“many aspects described above are not intended as required or essential elements unless explicitly stated otherwise. Modifications of, and equivalent components or acts corresponding to, the disclosed aspects of the examples, in addition to those described above, can be made by a person of ordinary skill in the art”); ¶ 50 (“the network 120 can include a local area network ("LAN"), a wide area network ("WAN"), an intranet, an Internet, storage area network ("SAN"), personal area network ("PAN"), a metropolitan area network ("MAN"), a wireless local area network ("WLAN"), a virtual private network ("VPN"), a cellular or other mobile communication network, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, NFC, or any combination thereof or any other appropriate architecture or system that facilitates the communication of signals, data, and/or messages … the terms "data" and "information" are used interchangeably herein to refer to text, images, audio, video, or any other form of information that can exist in a computer-based environment.”); ¶ 51 (“ Each network computing device 110, 130, 140, 150, 160, and 170 includes a device having a communication module capable of transmitting and receiving data over the network 120. For example, each network computing device 110, 130, 140, 150, 160, and 170 can include a server, desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, a television with one or more processors embedded therein and / or coupled thereto, smart phone, handheld computer, personal digital assistant ("PDA"), or any other wired or wireless, processor driven device.”); ¶ 56 (“the user interface 115 may be a touch screen, a voice-based interface, or any other interface that allows the user 101 to provide input and receive output from an application or module on the user computing device 110.”); ¶ 58 (“the camera module 117 may be any module or function of the user computing device 110 that captures a digital image … Any other suitable image capturing device may be represented by the camera module 117.”); ¶ 63 (“An example merchant beacon device 120 is programmed to broadcast, emit, or otherwise transmit a particular merchant beacon device 120 identifier over a local wireless network, for example, a BLE network, to any user computing devices 110 within a threshold distance required to maintain the wireless network 120 … any other appropriate wireless network 120”); ¶ 67 (“the audio module 131 may be any module or function of the merchant POS device 130 that captures an audio input of an external environment of the merchant POS device 130. … Any suitable audio recording device may be represented by the audio module 131.”); ¶ 68 (“the camera module 132 may be any module or function of the merchant POS device 130 that captures an image or video input of an external environment of the merchant POS device 130. … Any suitable image capturing and/or video recording device may be represented by the camera module 132.”); ¶ 70 (“ any other interface that allows the merchant POS device operator 102 to provide input and receive output from an application or module on the merchant POS device 130. In an example, the merchant POS device operator 102 interacts via the user interface 135 with the payment application 133.”); ¶ 73 (“The merchant system 170 may represent a merchant server, a third party financial system provider, or any other person, server, or system that performs the function of the merchant. For example, the merchant system 170 may communicate transaction data, requests for authorizations, settlement requests, or any other data required to conduct transactions. … That is, any function described herein as being performed by the merchant POS device 130 or the merchant system 1 70 may be performed by either or both where appropriate.”); ¶ 77 (“a user 101 account may comprise a digital wallet account, an email account, a social networking account, or any other appropriate account associated with the account management system 160.”); ¶ 81 (“the network computing devices and any other computing machines associated with the technology presented herein may be any type of computing machine … any modules associated with any of these computing machines, such as modules described herein or any other modules (scripts, web content, software, firmware, or hardware) associated with the technology presented herein may by any of the modules discussed in more detail with respect to Figure 16. … The network 120 may include any type of data or communications network”); ¶ 124 (“ payment application 113 may provide any other suitable information to the user 101.”); ¶ 190 (“ Any configured challenge response may be utilized. In certain embodiments, the response may be a s poken response, a hand gesture, a keypad entry, a display of an identification card, or any suitable response.”); ¶ 191 (“The merchant POS device operator 102 enters the response via a virtual or physical keyboard, voice dictation, or in any suitable manner .”); ¶ 197 (“inputting the selection in any suitable manner .”); ¶ 208 (“The method 295b may be practiced in a ny other suitable transaction environment, in addition to the hands-free environment described herein”); ¶ 208 (“ any other suitable device or card ”); ¶ 209 (“ Any other suitable method to verify the user 101 may be utilized.”); ¶ 210 (“The verification may be conducted as described in the examples or in any other suitable manner .”); ¶¶ 217, 216 (“The transmission may be sent via any suitable technology , such as via the Internet over network 120”); ¶ 220 (“The settlement request may be communicated at the end of business each day, after every transaction is completed, every two days, or at any other suitable interval .”); ¶ 222 (“then the payment processing system 140 may transfer the funds via a bank transfer or any suitable method of transferring funds .”); ¶ 225 (“The computing machine 2000 may correspond to any of the various computers , servers, mobile devices, embedded systems, or computing systems presented herein.”); ¶ 226 (“The computing machine 2000 may be implemented as a conventional computer system , an embedded controller, a laptop, a server, a mobile device, a smartphone, a set-top box, a kiosk, a vehicular information system, one more processors associated with a television, a customized machine, any other hardware platform, or any combination or multiplicity thereof.”); ¶ 227 (“ any other processing unit ,”); ¶ 228 (The system memory 2030 may include … any other device capable of storing program instructions or data with or without applied power.”); ¶ 229 ( storage media 2040 may include … any magnetic storage device, any optical storage device, any electrical storage device, any semiconductor storage device, any physical-based storage device, any other data storage device, or any combination or multiplicity thereof.”); ¶ 230 (“ Machine or computer readable media may genera11y refer to any medium or media used to provide instructions to the processor 2010.”); ¶ 231 (“The I/0 interface 2060 may be configured to implement any standard interface ”); ¶ 233 (“The network 2080 may be packet switched, circuit switched, of any topology, and may use any communication protoco l.”); ¶ 236 (“there could be many different ways of implementing embodiments in computer programming, and the embodiments should not be construed as limited to any one set of computer program instructions. Further, a skilled programmer would be able to write such a computer program to implement an embodiment of the disclosed embodiments based on the appended flow charts and associated description in the application text. Therefore, disclosure of a particular set of program code instructions is not considered necessary for an adequate understanding of how to make and use embodiments.”); ¶ 237 (“The examples described herein can be used with computer hardware and software that perform the methods and processing functions described herein. The systems, methods, and procedures described herein can be embodied in a programmable computer, computer-executable software, or digital circuitry”). The generic processor, here, performs calculations (functions) and executes instructions that are programmed by software directed to the abstract idea. Spec. ¶¶ 81, 225, 230, 236. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow, and whose directions implement the abstract idea. Limitation A describes the processor of the merchant computing system “communicatively coupled” in some way to the storage device. Limitation A further describes the processor executing application code instructions to perform the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and memory device, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–J describe the processor, storage device, and instructions, performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception using a computer, merely adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception without imposing any meaningful technical limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Alternatively , the claim generically recites an effect of the abstract idea without specifying how the computer achieves that effect in any technically meaningful way. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3). Therefore, the claim as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea. Independent Claim 29 is not substantially different than Rep. Claim 35, recites the same abstract idea as Rep. Claim 35, and contains no additional elements not otherwise analyzed for Rep. Claim 35. Therefore, Independent Claim 29 is also directed to the same abstract idea. The claims do not provide an inventive concept. Step 2B : Rep. Claim 35 fails Step 2B because the claim as a whole, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements (i.e., A system comprising: a storage device and processor of a merchant computing system ; application code instructions; an account management system; a wireless communication device; a user computing device; a point-of-sale device; and a payment processing system) , are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure 2 . Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components are implemented using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology and that many of these components may be implemented in any suitable manner. Spec. ¶ 50–58, 63–68, 70–73, 81, 225–233. (1) A storage device and processor of a merchant computing system ; application code instructions are WRC in the financial technology field. Spec. ¶¶ 225–231. (2) an account management system; a wireless communication device; a user computing device; a point-of-sale device; and a payment processing system are WRC. Spec. ¶¶ 50–58, 63, 66–68, 70–73, 140, 160. Applicant describes each component broadly as any suitable computer connected to a network. The Specification further confirms that the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing data are normal, well-understood operations of generic computer systems. Spec. ¶¶ 50–58, 66–68, 70–73, 225–233. The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited : The combination of the additional elements is likewise WRC. A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(2). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification. There is no indication that the combination of these elements operates in an unconventional manner or produces a result that is other than what would be expected from the generic application of these individual components. Spec. ¶¶ 3–5, 50–58, 63–68, 70–73, 81, 225–233. Unlike BASCOM , where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location (an ISP server) rather than on individual end-user devices, Rep. Claim 35 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way. The claims recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular arrangement or order that constitutes the alleged improvement. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two, the technical solution alleged in the specification is not actually recited by independent claims. Because the claims omit these details, any non-conventional arrangement allegedly described in the specification is simply not recited in the claims. A non-conventional arrangement that is described in the specification but not claimed cannot supply the inventive concept at Step 2B. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, the abstract idea recited in claims cannot be improved by a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). No inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 35 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra . Independent Claim 29 is a method claim reciting steps that perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 35. Independent Claim 29 adds no additional elements beyond those of Rep. Claim 35 that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Independent Claim 29 also does not recite an inventive concept under Step 2B. Dependent Claims Not Significantly More The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination with the elements of the independent claims. Each dependent claim incorporates all the limitations of its parent Independent Claim and therefore recites the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B, for the following reasons: Dependent Claims 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 each add further limitations that narrow how the abstract payment and identification workflow is implemented but do not add any additional elements beyond those already analyzed for Rep. Claim 35. Regarding Dependent Claims 30, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, and 43 : Regarding “hands free identification” as recited in Claim 30, Examiner interprets this limitation in view of the specification as automated identification of a user without the user actively interacting with their computer device at the time of the transaction. Spec. ¶¶ 29, 37–42, 47, 88–91; Claims 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 43. These limitations add only the use of known types of biometric or challenge data to the identification step of the abstract idea. The specification treats the capture and comparison of facial images, audio recordings, and challenge responses as generic uses of existing camera, audio, and interface modules on conventional devices implemented in “any suitable” manner. Spec. ¶¶ 37–42, 58, 67, 68 70, 81, 190, 191. They do not recite any new image or audio processing algorithm, new challenge-response protocol, or any other technique that changes how the underlying computer hardware operates. Regarding Claims 31 and 36 , Examiner interprets this to mean that while the account management system participates in authorization, it is not named in the transaction details and the transaction is indicated as having been conducted with the merchant and not the account management system. Spec. ¶¶ 45–47. The specification explains that this arrangement protects the user account by keeping the account management system off the transaction record. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 5, 56, 47. This limitation merely restates a desired business and record-keeping outcome of the abstract idea itself. It does not change how any computer operates at a technical level and introduces no new authentication or cryptographic protocol. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). Regarding Claim 34 , the “receiving,” “storing,” selecting (transmitting/receiving), “receive,” and “remove,” merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). The claimed timing limitations (“second time”) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are claimed at a high level, without specifying any particular technological mechanism for implementing it. Therefore, this limitation does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Regarding Claims 37, 41, 42, 44 , they further describe the business logic and user interface flow for selecting and executing a transaction using the abstract payment process. They are implemented using generic POS and computer functions (displaying options, receiving user input, capturing characteristics, send transaction data) and do not recite any non-conventional UI features, network protocol, or processing technique. Spec. ¶¶ 50–58, 67–70, 73, 81, 124, 225–233. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). Conclusion Claims 29–44 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 35 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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. /JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 2 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 3 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 4 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 5 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 6 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 7 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 8 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 9 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 10 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 11 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 12 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 13 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 14 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 15 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 16 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 17 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 18 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 19 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 20 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 21 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 22 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 23 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 24 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/394,350 Page 25 Art Unit: 3694 1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). 2 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) , 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
Prosecution Insights