DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 7/22/2025. Claims 1-4, 8-13, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The system of claim 1 and method of claim 11 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Using the text of claim 11 as an example, independent claims 1 and 11 recite:
11. A method being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run at one or more processors and stored at one or more non-transitory computer- readable media, the method comprising:
generating a user interface portion for a user device, wherein the user interface portion is for multiple used payment methods for an order payment by a user for an order, the order payment comprising multiple activities performed for the order using the multiple used payment methods,
the generating the user interface portion comprising: upon determining that a payment method count for the user of the multiple used payment methods is greater than one:
determining a current payment method based on the multiple used payment methods and a payment-method-sequence rule; and
generating a payment-method-selection area of the user interface portion, the payment-method-selection area comprising multiple payment-method indications for the multiple used payment methods,
wherein: the payment-method-selection area is configured to: display the multiple payment-method indications in a multi- page configuration, including multiple pages each configured to show a fixed count of payment-method indications, based on an overall width of the multiple payment-method indications being greater than a width of the payment-method-selection area;
receive, via the user device, a payment-method-display selection of the user for the current payment method from the multiple payment-method indications displayed in the multi-page configuration; and
upon detecting a change in the payment-method-display selection of the user, cause a re-generation of the user interface portion; and
generating a ledger area of the user interface portion for the current payment method to display information associated with the current payment method and the order payment,
the information comprising: payment-method-account information;
a payment-method status; and one or more activities, of the multiple activities, associated with the current payment method; and
transmitting, via a computer network, a charge-history user interface comprising the user interface portion to be on the user device for the user.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claims 1 and 11 each recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claims 1 and 11 are each directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted each of claims 1 and 11 only recite the commercial or legal interaction of business relations of “display information associated with the current payment method and the order payment.” Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) which discusses “An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) further discusses “An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)", which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity." 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.” It is respectfully submitted that displaying information associated with the current payment method and the order payment is merely tracking financial transactions. Accordingly, each of claims 1 and 11 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Although the claims have been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claims also fall in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) lists placing an order based on displayed market information as an example of fundamental economic principles or practices. Here, to “display information associated with the current payment method and the order payment” is a fundamental economic practice. Please see Applicant’s specification, [0002], [0104].
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims only recite the additional elements of computing instructions, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer- readable media, user interface portion, user device, payment-method-selection area, multiple payment-method indications, multi- page configuration, based on an overall width of the multiple payment-method indications being greater than a width of the payment-method-selection area, re-generation of the user interface portion, upon detecting a change in the payment-method-display selection of the user, cause a re-generation of the user interface portion, ledger area of the user interface portion, computer network, charge-history user interface to perform a method comprising: generating multiple used payment methods for an order payment by a user for an order, the order payment comprising multiple activities performed for the order using the multiple used payment methods, upon determining that a payment method count for the user of the multiple used payment methods is greater than one: determining a current payment method based on the multiple used payment methods and a payment-method-sequence rule; and display the multiple payment-method indications in multiple pages each configured to show a fixed count of payment-method indications, receive a payment-method selection of the user for the current payment method; display information associated with the current payment method and the order payment, the information comprising: payment-method-account information; a payment-method status; and one or more activities, of the multiple activities, associated with the current payment method; and transmitting a charge-history for the user. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claims 1 and 11 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 1 and 11, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computing instructions, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer- readable media, user interface portion, user device, payment-method-selection area, multiple payment-method indications, multi- page configuration, based on an overall width of the multiple payment-method indications being greater than a width of the payment-method-selection area, re-generation of the user interface portion, upon detecting a change in the payment-method-display selection of the user, cause a re-generation of the user interface portion, ledger area of the user interface portion, computer network, charge-history user interface to perform a method comprising: generating multiple used payment methods for an order payment by a user for an order, the order payment comprising multiple activities performed for the order using the multiple used payment methods, upon determining that a payment method count for the user of the multiple used payment methods is greater than one: determining a current payment method based on the multiple used payment methods and a payment-method-sequence rule; and display the multiple payment-method indications in multiple pages each configured to show a fixed count of payment-method indications, receive a payment-method selection of the user for the current payment method; display information associated with the current payment method and the order payment, the information comprising: payment-method-account information; a payment-method status; and one or more activities, of the multiple activities, associated with the current payment method; and transmitting a charge-history for the user amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, [0026]. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional element in the dependent claims including data storage, server (claims 3, 4, 13, 14), first and second regions of the ledger area (claims 5, 15), order-detail user interface (claims 9, 19), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments concerning Step 2A, prong one, the Applicant only argues “Even assuming the independent claims recite a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede”. Accordingly, there are no arguments to respond with respect to Step 2A, prong one.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying the judicial exception with a particular machine, effecting transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful was beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Applicant argues “MPEP 201.04(d) states: "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Amended independent claims 1 and 11 as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to improvements in the technical field of user interfaces by adapting a user interface portion to a multi-page configuration that allows additional information to be incorporated into a confined area of the user interface, which improves the utilization of a display screen of an electronic device. For example, paragraph [0104] of the specification states, "In some embodiments, the techniques described herein can provide improved approaches for generating user interface portions for a user device for displaying payment activities.". The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant cites MPEP 201.04(d) but the quoted portion is in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) further notes “In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” The Applicant’s specification notes the multi-page configuration in [0041], [0062], [0091]. None of these sections describe the multi-page configuration as an improvement. To the contrary, the Applicant’s specification, [0086], explicitly notes “the user interface portions, the areas, and/or the components of charge-history user interface 700 can be arranged in any suitable layouts”. Applicant’s specification [0052], further notes “system 310 can list the one or more activities in the user interface portion in any suitable order or arrangement”. Applicant’s specification, [0057], still further notes “block 410 can display all of payment activities associated with the order payment in any suitable fashion”. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument adapting a user interface portion to a multi-page configuration constitutes an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(a), noting examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the Applicant themselves cites Applicant’s specification, [0104], which only notes payment activities are displayed. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2B, no arguments were presented regarding Step 2B. However, Step 2B is directed to whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (AKA “significantly more”) than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(d) gives examples recognized by the courts of known computer functions including “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “performing repetitive calculations”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, “recording a customer’s order”, “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, all of which directly correspond to the generically claimed operations of the present claims, which claim displaying payment activities.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 11748727; US 20230252467; US 11636452; US 20230058933; US 20210158322; AU 2020239727; AU 2021101401; US 10643201; and US 20120310774.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Harper whose telephone number is (571)272-5481. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached at (571) 272-6709. 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.
/GREGORY HARPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3692