DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. The Amendment filed 9/24/25 has been entered. Pending amended claims 1-20 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
3. The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities, in the context of other limitation of the same claim, and the following is suggested to overcome the informalities to improve claim clarity:
Claim 1
A method comprising:
…
analyzing, the plurality of items of interest[[s]] in view of a user profile associated with the user;
…
training a machine learning algorithm to analyze a transaction and predict[[ at]] the entity and at least one category associated with a transaction, wherein training data is associated with one or more determined prior transactions by the user within an historical time period;
… .
Since claims 11 and 18 have essentially the same informal errors as claim 1, please amend those claims in a similar manner as claim 1.
Appropriate correction or clarification of these claims is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-10), a machine (claims 11-17) and a manufacture (claims 18-20). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
receiving at least one electronic receipt generated by an entity upon completion of a transaction;
identifying a plurality of items of interest from the at least one electronic receipt to a user documented in the receipt;
analyzing, the plurality of items of (interest) in view of a user profile associated with the user;
selecting one or more of the plurality of items of interest for further processing;
predicting, … , the at least one category associated with one or more items associated with the transaction and predicting the entity;
providing, … , a generated communication to … the user, the communication indicating the predicted at least one category and the predicted entity;
receiving an indication from the … (user) indicating whether the transaction is valid or invalid; and
cataloging the receipt in accordance with the at least one category and the entity.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes sub-categories of commercial interactions involving sales activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: receiving an electronic receipt for a completed purchase transaction (sales activity) for a user having an account for receiving electronic receipts, including predicting a category for the receipt and predicting an associated entity, and including sending the prediction results to a user and receiving user input regarding validity of the receipt).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “network device”, a user “device”, one or more “processor”, a “machine learning algorithm” to analyze transaction data, a “user interface” for user selection input, a “memory” for storing receipt data, “machine learning” used to analyze training data associated with one or more prior financial transaction by a user over a certain time period, and a “memory” or a “computer-readable medium” storing processor executable instructions to accomplish various functions, do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or communication network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
The independent claims also include one or more additional element limitation that is/are simply being used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the independent claims, which activity is beyond the abstract idea recited therein and is only tangentially related thereto and does not provide a technological improvement (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application). (MPEP §2106.05(g)) Here, the independent claims include an additional element limitation of:
“training a machine learning algorithm to analyze a transaction and predict … the entity and at least one category associated with a transaction, wherein training data is associated with one or more determined prior transactions by the user within an historical time period.”
Applicant’s disclosure describes that this additional element limitation simply requires that a machine learning model is trained with various data, which may be purchase transaction data, to perform various operations, including predicting categories of items associated with transactions/purchases and predicting an entity associated with the items. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 045-047, 068 and 104) No technological improvement is discussed in the specification, but simply the use of a machine learning model/algorithm discussed and claimed at a high degree of generality to accomplished various claimed functions regarding operations related to commercial interactions between a user and a merchant.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or communication network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved nor do they solve a technological problem vs. a commercial interaction problem regarding associating purchase items and an entity seller to a user, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
As determined above in Step 2, Prong 2, the independent claims also include one or more additional element limitation that is simply being used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the independent claims, which activity is beyond the abstract idea recited therein and is only tangentially related thereto. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(g)) Here, “training a machine learning algorithm to analyze a transaction and predict … the entity and at least one category associated with a transaction, wherein training data is associated with one or more determined prior transactions by the user within an historical time period.” The additional element limitation(s) of the independent claims identified in this paragraph is/are simply carrying out extra-solution activity/functionality that is well-known, routine or conventional for a computer, a computing system, a computing device, including associated displays and/or user interfaces, for displaying data, and none of the elements are themselves being technologically improved. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 045-047, 068 and 104); See also, MPEP §2106.05(d)II.)
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 2, 4, 12 and 14 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that electronic receipt data is stored for an user receipt account for a valid transaction, or electronic receipt data for various transactions is retrievable by a user, which is simply data storage and data retrieval steps, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 3 and 13 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring determining that the purchase transaction is valid based on user input indicating same, which is simply data analysis based on certain rules being applied, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 19 and 20 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that a correct predicted receipt category is correct based on analyzed historical training data and purchased items in the receipt and/or that a correct predicted receipt category is based on a predetermined probability threshold, which is simply analyzing data using various rules, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 7 and 17 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the historical time period for the training data is a certain designated time period, which is simply data analysis based on applying rules, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 8 and 9 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that when a transaction is determined valid certain purchased item data is extracted from the electronic receipt, or that header information in a tracker is included that is associated with other user transactions, which is simply extracting, analyzing, and formatting certain data, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claim 10 simply defines an additional element used to enable user input to carry out the abstract idea by requiring that a user interface is used for the user to input selection of various information presented on the interface to indicate a valid receipt. The specification simply requires that a user interface is used by the user to interact with it to indicate that a receipt is valid or not, which is simply data entry for validating a financial transaction. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 050, 063 and 095) Therefore, this claim does not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/24/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 8-14) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis, the claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated above in the 101 rejection in view of the amended claims.
Since applicant makes no specific allegation of error by the Office in its prior determination that the claims recite a patent ineligible abstract idea, no response is necessary by the Office under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong 2 (Amendment, Pgs. 8-12), alleging that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea recited by the claims, are not persuasive. Firstly, the 2019 PEG cited by applicant is not the current standard for determining an Alice rejection under 35 USC §101, nor has it been for several years. The MPEP §2106 determines subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101. Under the guidance of §2106, the Office determined that the claims recite an abstract idea and are directed to that abstract idea. (See, prior Office action) Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite a technological improvement (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea) are not persuasive. The Amdocs case cited by applicant is not determinative. Under the MPEP §2106 analysis found above in the §101 rejection of the current version of the amended claims, the claims are directed to the recited abstract idea since they do not provide a technological improvement to either the additional elements or additional element limitations recited by the claims, as described above, nor do they improve another technology. Those additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply carry out the functionality of the claims to perform the recited abstract idea that falls within the patent ineligible category of commercial interactions, as described above.
Regardless of “how” a process is implemented (see applicant’s arguments, Amendment Pg. 10), unless there is a technological improvement being brought about by the claim, which is not the case with applicant’s currently amended claims since they do not provide a technological improvement to either the additional elements or additional element limitations recited by the claims, as described above in the §101 rejection, nor do they improve another technology, there is no subject matter eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2. The claims simply provide an implementation of the abstract idea without a technological improvement. Using technology (e.g., a machine learning model/algorithm) is not the same as improving technology.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B (Amendment, Pgs. 13-14), that the claims provide an inventive concept (something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed), are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues that there is an inventive concept being brought about by the claims by a supposed improvement in “technology involving the digitization, storing and cataloging of receipts, namely applying machine learning to determine that at least one category and the entity (merchant) and cataloging the results accordingly.” However, a process for digitization of a receipt is not claimed. Furthermore, simple storage of a receipt is claimed only in dependent claims 2 and 12, and is claimed at a high level of generality by simply storing electronic receipt data in a memory. An element, feature or functionality that supposedly brings about a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application of the subject matter) must be identified in the specification and claimed in order for the claims to arguably be directed to that technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application). (See e.g., Berkheimer v HP Inc. (CAFC 2018-2-8), Slip opinion at 15-16) Such is not the case here.
Nothing in Bascom, cited by applicant, remedies the deficiencies in applicant’s arguments noted here.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W. King whose telephone number is (571) 270 -5776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 7 AM - 3 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6776.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, or via video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview applicant may call the Examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOSEPH W. KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696