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 .
Acknowledgement
Applicant’s amendment filed on October 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 29 is cancelled per applicant’s filing on 10/15/2025.
Claims 21, 24-28, 31, 34-38, 40-41 are amended.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-43 are pending. Claims 21, 23-28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-43 have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claims 38 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 38, “A non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system a sub-merchant POS terminal, a payment facilitator, or an acquirer processor, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising…routing, by the first sub-system…; querying, by the second sub-system…” should be “A non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system a sub-merchant POS terminal, a first sub-system a second sub-system executed by one or more processors of a computing system a sub-merchant POS terminal, a first sub-system a second sub-system
In claim 41, “configuring, by the one or more processors of the sub-merchant POS terminal, the sub-merchant POS terminal to communicate with a device associated with the first user, wherein the device associated with the first user transmits data by (i) displaying a QR code that is captured by a reader or a camera of the terminal, or (ii) generating an audio signal that is sensed by a microphone of the terminal” should be “…wherein the device associated with the first user transmits data by (i) displaying a QR code that is captured by a reader or a camera of the sub-merchant POS terminal, or (ii) generating an audio signal that is sensed by a microphone of the sub-merchant POS terminal”. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted “…wherein the device associated with the first user transmits data by (i) displaying a QR code that is captured by a reader or a camera of the sub-merchant POS terminal, or (ii) generating an audio signal that is sensed by a microphone of the sub-merchant POS terminal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Section 112 Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 21, 24-28, 31, 38 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b); therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Section 103 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103; therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Section 101 Rejections
Applicant contends “independent claims 21, 31, and 37 recite a specific computer-implemented method that improves the operation of a computing system for generating analytics reports. The claim integrates multiple elements of receiving user requests, routing them across subsystems, querying databases, and dynamically processing analytics data with a trained machine learning algorithm, to provide real-time and adaptive analytics report. This combination of steps is not a generic or abstract application of machine learning; rather, it enhances system performance, accuracy, and efficiency, and produces a tangible output in the form of a graphical analytics report. Evaluated in its entirety, the claims present a practical technological solution, consistent with the USPTO's "viewed as a whole" guidance, and should therefore be recognized as patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A, Prong One analysis (MPEP 2106), the amended claim 21, as representative, recites an abstract idea of generating and displaying analytics report based on analytics data to a second user. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving…a request from a user…”, “transmitting…the request …”, “routing, … the request…for generating an analytics report”, “querying…for accessing analytics data based on the request”, “inputting…the analytics data…into a trained [] algorithm, wherein the trained [] algorithm predicts and recommends relevant data for inclusion in the analytics report, and wherein the trained [] algorithm dynamically adjusts the prediction based on real-time updates”, “generating…a display of the analytics report…associated with a second user,” the claim, as a whole, is directed to generating and display analytics report, which is a method of organizing human activity and an abstract idea. This involves a process of receiving a request, sending the request, obtaining analytics data, inputting the analytics data into an algorithm and outputting the analytics report. Under Prong I, Step 2A, the claimed steps recite the abstract idea of generating and displaying analytics report based on analytics data to a second user. This amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), therefore, falls within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Additionally, the limitations, “inputting…the analytics data…into a trained [] algorithm, wherein the trained machine algorithm predict and recommend relevant data…” falls within “mathematical concepts” (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) grouping of abstract ideas.
When analyzed under Prong Two, Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, for example, the additional elements of “one or more processors of a sub-merchant POS terminal”, “an access device,” “the sub-merchant POS terminal”, “a first sub-system,” “one or more processors of the first sub-system”, “a second sub-system,” “one or more processors of the second sub-system,” “database,” “a user interface of a device,” performing the claimed steps of receiving a request, transmitting the request, routing the request for generating an analytics report, query data for accessing analytics data based on the request, inputting the analytics data into a machine learning algorithm and generating a display of the analytics report, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the elements of “a trained machine learning algorithm,” “wherein the trained machine learning algorithm predicts and recommends relevant data for inclusion in the analytics report,” and “wherein the trained machine learning algorithm dynamically adjusts the prediction based on real-time updates,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of machine learning and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use of machine learning.
Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible. Also, the rejection does not rely on the additional elements being well-understood, routine, and conventional. Rather, the additional elements do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they only involve using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark regarding independent claims 21, 31, and 37 relate closely to the principles Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing, No. 2024-000567 (USPTO Admin. Rev. Panel Sept. 26, 2025) ("Desjardins"), Examiner notes, however, that the instant claims are not in any way similar to Desjardins as the instant claims do not provide an improvement to machine-learning technology that integrates abstract idea into a practical application. Contrary to Desjardins, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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, 23-25, 27-31, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 21, 23-28, 30, 41-43 are directed to a method (‘process’), claims 31, 33-37 are directed to a system (‘machine’), and claims 38, 40 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (‘manufacture’) . Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent Claims 21, 31 and 38
Step 2A Prong One
The claims recite (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of generating and displaying analytics report based on analytics data to a second user. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
receiving, by one or more processors of a sub-merchant POS terminal, a request from an access device associated with a first user, wherein the request includes identifying data associated with the access device and/or the first user;
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the sub-merchant POS terminal, the request from the sub-merchant POS terminal to a first sub-system;
routing, by one or more processors of the first sub-system, the request from the first sub-system to a second sub-system for generating an analytics report, wherein the first sub-system is a payment facilitator computing sub-system;
querying, by one or more processors of the second sub-system, a database associated with the second sub-system for accessing analytics data based on the request, wherein the second sub-system is an acquirer processor computing sub-system;
inputting, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, the analytics data from the database into a trained machine learning algorithm, wherein the trained machine learning algorithm predicts and recommends relevant data for inclusion in the analytics report, and wherein the trained machine learning algorithm dynamically adjusts the prediction based on real-time updates; and
generating, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, a display of the analytics report in a graphical user interface of a device associated with a second user.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims recite a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the limitations, “inputting…the analytics data…into a trained [] algorithm, wherein the trained [] algorithm predicts and recommends relevant data…” falls within “mathematical concepts” (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) grouping of abstract ideas. The claims are still abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “one or more processors of a sub-merchant POS terminal”, “an access device,” “the sub-merchant POS terminal”, “a first sub-system,” “one or more processors of the first sub-system”, “a second sub-system,” “one or more processors of the second sub-system,” “database,” “a user interface of a device,” and “one or more processors of a sub-merchant POS terminal, a first sub-system or a second sub-system; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations…” recited in claim 31, as well as “a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a sub-merchant POS terminal, a payment facilitator, or an acquirer processor” recited in claim 38 merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the elements of “a trained machine learning algorithm,” “wherein the trained machine learning algorithm predicts and recommends relevant data for inclusion in the analytics report,” and “wherein the trained machine learning algorithm dynamically adjusts the prediction based on real-time updates,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of machine learning and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use of machine learning.
Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 23-25, 27-28, 30, 33-35, 37, 40, 42-43
Claims 23 and 33 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the graphical user interface displaying the analytics report is segmented into computer perceivable regions.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of providing analytics report. The claims not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 24, 34 and 40 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determining, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, at least one of the segmented computer perceivable regions is void of content and has space to display the analytics report; and
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, the analytics report and displaying the analytics report in the void segmented computer perceivable region.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of providing analytics report. The claims not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 25 and 35 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein determining the at least one segmented computer perceivable region is void of content, further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system executing a visibility code, a visibility code to determine legibility of the analytics report displayed in the graphical user interface.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of providing analytics report. The non-underlined additional elements of “…the one or more processors of the second sub-system executing a visibility code”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 27 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
sorting, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, the data by applying weighted algorithms: and
presenting, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, the sorted data in the graphical user interface displaying the analytics report..
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of providing analytics report. The claims not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 28 and 37 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
generating, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, utilizing the trained machine learning algorithm, transaction activity map data; and
generating, by the one or more processors of the second sub-system, the analytics report based on the transaction activity map data.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of providing analytics report. The claims not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 30 recites characteristics of the access device. Claims 42 and 43 each further recites characteristics of user interface displays. Therefore, the claims further recite the abstract idea of generating and displaying analytics report based on analytics data to a second user. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 36, 41 would be allowable if amended to overcome the claim objections above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DiGioacchino et al. (US 2013/0275181A1) teaches service provider analytics.
Phillipps et al. (US 9,646,262B2) teaches data intelligence using machine learning.
Yeldham et al. (US 10,853,865B2) teaches a method of converting activity levels into an interactive heat map.
Deniz et al. (US 2019/0073650A1) teaches a method of performing a transaction between a merchant and a customer.
SHARMA et al. (US 2018/0349956A1) teaches a method for providing notifications to a mobile device located in a zoned area.
Mori et al. (US 2022/0229836A1) teaches a method of generating analytics with structured query files.
Hammad et al. (US 11,288,661B2) teaches a method of transforming real-time-generated merchant-product Quick Response codes into virtual wallet card-based transaction purchase.
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 CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-4 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, John W. Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697