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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed on November 10, 2025 in which claims 1-8, 12 and 15-20 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 8 and 15.
The claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to a system and claims 8-14 are directed to a method which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : the contactless transmitter configured to transmit wireless signals; and an integrated circuit comprising : a generator module including artificial intelligence, the generator module configured to learn from previous transaction experience without instructional programming; and a discriminator module including artificial intelligence, the discriminator module configured to learn from previous transaction experience without instructional programming ; wherein: the generator module is configured to, in response to receiving an attempted transaction, the attempted transaction occurring between the contactless transmitter and a contactless receiver, the contactless receiver not included in the smart card: receive a transaction identifier packet from the contactless receiver, the transaction identifier packet including first data, the first data including identifying data associated with the contactless receiver; retrieve a historical data packet including second data, the second data including determinations executed by the discriminator module that determined whether past attempted transactions were legitimate; and generate, using artificial intelligence, a synthetic data model using a combination of the first and second data; and the discriminator module is configured to: receive the synthetic data model; connect to a knowledge graph, the knowledge graph configured to store third data, the third data including identifiers of authorized contactless receivers; determine a comparison score based on a percentage of the synthetic data model that matches the third data stored in the knowledge graph; execute, using artificial intelligence, a prediction whether the attempted transaction will be a legitimate transaction based on whether the comparison score is greater than a predetermined comparison score threshold value; and transmit the prediction to the smart card; wherein the smart card is further configured to: execute the attempted transaction in response to a prediction that the attempted transaction will be a legitimate transaction; and terminate the attempted transaction, in response to a prediction that the attempted transaction will be an illegitimate transaction. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices. Determining whether the attempted transactions are legitimate or illegitimate is a way of mitigating risk and mitigating risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3-5, [0006], [0010], [0012). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 8 and 15 and hence the claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 15 recites a remote contactless server that amounts to generic computer implementation.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 6, 9 and 16 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the additional element of a generative adversarial network ("GAN"). A generative adversarial network ("GAN") is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of a radio frequency identification ("RFID") transaction. A radio frequency identification ("RFID") transaction is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
4. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20. While some individual features of claims 1-20 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-20. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
1) Poznansky (US 8,256,667 B2) – This invention relates to the protection of transaction cards in general and in particular to the protection of credit cards for retail purchases. The transaction card of the invention offers several levels of protection to make the transaction card more secure to own and use. The transaction card of the invention can be equipped with communication capabilities such as Near Field Communication (NFC) by Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in order to communicate with nearby devices such as credit card readers, ATM machines and mobile phones.
2) Kundu (US 2006/0243798 A1) – This invention relates to generally performing video counting or identification of items involved with transactions, as captured in video data, and compares this item identification information with transaction data obtained from a transaction terminal such as a point-of-sale register to identify situations that are suspicious and may indicate fraudulent activity.
3) Llagostera (US 2018/0173789 A1) – The invention relates to a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network being trained with to predict a summary describing the state change between at least two states of the datacenter. Given a set of training data (at least two data center states that are annotated with a state change description), the LSTM neural network learns which similarities and differences between the datacenter states correspond to the annotations. Accordingly, given a set of test data comprising at least two states of a datacenter represented by context graphs that indicate a plurality of relationships among a plurality of nodes corresponding to components of a datacenter, the LSTM neural network is able to determine a state change description that summarizes the differences and similarities between the at least two states of the datacenter.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed dated 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
6. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues that (pages 13-14), “The claims, as amended, therefore should not be considered a fundamental economic practice and should not be grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained in the 101 analysis above, the steps of the claim, when collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Fundamental economic principles or practices. Determining whether the attempted transactions are legitimate or illegitimate is a way of mitigating risk and mitigating risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
7. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 14-15), Applicant argues that, “the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Determining a comparison score is part of an abstract idea. Receiving a transaction data, retrieving data and transmitting data are simply data gathering activities. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3-5, [0006], [0010], [0012). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The artificial intelligence is simply being used as a tool to predict whether the attempted transaction will be a legitimate transaction. The additional elements of a contactless transmitter, a smart card, an integrated circuit, a generator module, a discriminator module, a contactless receiver and the artificial intelligence, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
8. Applicant further argues that (page 15), “As in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit found the claims patent-eligible because they implemented specific rules that improved the existing technological process of computer animation.”
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of McRo (McRo, Inc. v. BandaiNamco Games Am., 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)). In McRo, the patents relate to “automating part of existing 3D animations of a character’s facial expressions and synchronize those expressions to the actual speech”, which were to be done manually before the issuance of the patent. The claims were directed to a patentable technological improvement over the existing, manual 3D animation techniques by using “limited complex set of rules specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result” thus providing "unconventional" practices than used in a conventional industry practice. Hence the claims in McRo were patent eligible because they recited significantly more than an abstract idea. Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution, using computers, to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. In McRo, the application of the limited complex set of rules resulted in an improvement of the 3D animation technology. By relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions is not an inventive concept). Looking at the amended limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Hence, the arguments are not persuasive.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
9. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 Sigmond can be reached on 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 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. 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.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694