DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 02 June 2026.
With this amendment: claims 21, 22, 24, 28, 32, 33, and 38 have been amended; claims 23, 25, and 30 have been canceled; claims 45-47 have been added.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-47 are currently pending.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-47 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the Examiner’s Prong Two analysis in the Office Action is deficient because it identifies only the “service computing device” (and equivalent hardware in claims 32 and 38) as an additional element, without considering the ordered combination of claim steps as a whole.” Remarks at 13. The claims as whole were considered. The additional elements and how they interact with the judicial exception results in nothing more than implementation of the juridical exception by the additional elements. Thus, the claims as a whole were considered and the conclusion was/is: “mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant identifies the added limitations arguing the “concurrent processing of both payments is a special technical operation …. Concurrent payment processing requires that the service computing device simultaneously interface with payment systems of multiple merchants via communication interfaces that “enable communications between the service computing device 202 and devices and associated with one or more merchants 204.” Specification, ¶ [0053].” Remarks at 13. Applicant also notes ¶ [0014]. Neither of these paragraphs indicate that a technical problem exists in the art, nor that the concurrent processing provides a technical solution. None of the advantages identified by Applicant, for example, “reduce the total number of communications and the overall latency of processing the two transactions,” (Remarks at 14) are support by the Specification. Examiner does not find support in any paragraph of the Specification for a conclusion that the concurrent processing is a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-47 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
Claims 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 43, and 44 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 32, 33, 36, and 37 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 38-42 and 45-47 recite a non-transitory computer-readable media which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 21 and 32) The “based at least in part on the location data, determining that a distance between a location of the first merchant and a location of a second merchant of the plurality of merchants is less than a threshold distance” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by the service computing device” language in claim 21 or the “cause the one or more processors to perform acts” language in claim 32, the claim encompasses a user manually determining, based on given information, that merchant locations are less than a threshold distance. Claims 21 and 32 fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 38) The “determining a threshold distance based at least in part on a geographic characteristic associated with a region of the first merchant” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by the service computing device” language in claim 21 or the “cause the one or more processors to perform acts” language in claim 38, the claim encompasses a user manually determining, based on given information, a distance. Claim 38 falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recites an abstract idea.
(Claims 21, 32, and 38) The “based at least in part on determining that the distance is less than the threshold distance, determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by the service computing device” language in claim 21 or the “cause the one or more processors to perform acts” language in claims 32 and 38, the claim encompasses a user manually determining, based on given information, that merchants are complementary. Claims 21, 32, and 38 fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 21, 32, and 38) The “determining, based at least in part on determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary, to offer a discounted delivery fee to the customer for conducting the first transaction with the first merchant and a second transaction with the second merchant” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a service computing device” language in claim 21 or the “cause the one or more processors to perform acts” language in claims 32 and 38, the claim encompasses a user manually determining, based on known information, to offer a discount to the customer. Claims 21, 32, and 38 fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recite an abstract idea.
The claims recite the concept of using known information to determine a discount to provide to a customer and processing payments related to any transaction initiated as a result of the provided discount (see “storing, in a data store, a plurality of merchant profiles, the plurality of merchant profiles comprising location data associated with a plurality of merchants; receiving, from a customer device of a customer or a point-of-sale (POS) device of a first merchant of the plurality of merchants, transaction data associated with a first transaction between the customer and the first merchant, wherein the first transaction corresponds to an order for delivery; based at least in part on the location data, determining that a distance between a location of the first merchant and a location of a second merchant of the plurality of merchants is less than a threshold distance; based at least in part on determining that the distance is less than the threshold distance, determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary; determining, based at least in part on determining that the first merchant and the second merchant are complementary, to offer a discounted delivery fee to the customer for conducting the first transaction with the first merchant and a second transaction with the second merchant; causing presentation of an indication of the discounted delivery fee to the customer on a display associated with the customer device; responsive to causing presentation of the indication of the discounted delivery fee, receiving, from the customer device, a request to conduct the second transaction with the second merchant; and concurrently processing a payment for the first transaction and a payment for the second transaction in accordance with the discounted delivery fee” in claim 32, for example.). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions and sales activities. Thus, claims 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-47 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 22, 24, 26-28, 33, and 36, 37, and 39-47 have been analyzed and they further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims but do not take the claims out of the identified abstract idea grouping(s). Thus, the dependent claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic device, system, or media does not take the claim limitations out of the identified abstract idea grouping(s). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a service computing device (claims 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 43, and 44), a system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (claims 32, 33, 36, and 37), or one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors (claims 38-42 and 45-47) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computing device, system, or non-transitory computer-readable media does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights