DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 submitted on 02/23/2026 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
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 .
Priority
No foreign priority or domestic benefit was claimed by the applicant and the application has been examined with respect to its filing date of 10/31/2023.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1-19 are directed to a process and claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
a method for recordation of interaction data, comprising:
monitor activity;
detect, based on the monitoring, an interaction between a user and an entity;
extract interaction data associated with the detected interaction, wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed prior to or during the interaction between the user and the entity; and
transmit the extracted interaction data;
receiving, interaction processing data associated with the entity;
comparing, the extracted interaction data and the received interaction processing data;
determining, whether the received interaction processing data corresponds to the detected interaction based on the comparison; and
in response to determining a correspondence between the detected interaction and the interaction processing data, storing, the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data associated with the user.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction. See ¶0001, ¶0024, and ¶0034 of the instant specification where the invention is discussed to improve tracking purchases made by employees at a company. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations also encompasses “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that it recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
a computer-implemented method for recordation of interaction data, comprising:
causing, via a remote device, a first electronic application installed on and operating on a user device to:
monitor activity of a second electronic application installed on and operating on the user device and separate from the first electronic application;
detect, based on the monitoring, an interaction between a user of the user device and an entity via the second electronic application;
extract interaction data associated with the detected interaction from the second electronic application, wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed prior to or during the interaction between the user and the entity via the second electronic application; and
transmit the extracted interaction data to the remote device;
receiving, via the remote device, interaction processing data associated with the entity;
comparing, by the remote device, the extracted interaction data and the received interaction processing data;
determining, by the remote device, whether the received interaction processing data corresponds to the detected interaction based on the comparison; and
in response to determining a correspondence between the detected interaction and the interaction processing data, storing, by the remote device, the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data in a data storage associated with the user.
Claims 11 and 20 include the same additional elements as claim 1. In addition, claim 20 includes additional elements such as, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for recordation of interaction data, the instructions executable by at least one processor of a remote device to perform operations.
The additional elements recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of computer devices and electronic applications (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Fig. 4 and ¶0052).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are acknowledged, claims 1, 11, and 20 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 11, and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20: user interface (claims 2 and 13), website (claims 5, 6, 16, and 17), and screen-shot (claims 9 and 19). However, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al. (US 2017/0193463 A1) in view of Namuduru et al. (US 2024/0184683 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Britt et al., hereinafter, Britt discloses a computer-implemented method for recordation of interaction data, comprising (Fig. 2A; Abstract [The ELECTRONIC RECEIPT MANAGER APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS (“ERM”) transforms transaction initiation requests and receipt requests via ERM components into receipt formatting, organization, storage and linkage with transactions.]):
causing, via a remote device, a first electronic application installed on and operating on a user device to (Figs. 1A, 1B[showing an electronic application on a user device], and 2A; ¶0025[A user (or a consumer) may use his or her portable device 105 to conduct a transaction with a merchant 110. The transaction may be conducted at a point of sale (PoS) terminal, online, between portable devices, and/or the like.]; Examiner notes that the Transaction Processing System Server is comparable to a remote device):
activity of a electronic application installed on and operating on the user device (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3; ¶0050[At 305, the receipt identifier generation engine may be executed, such as simultaneously with the RM application, in response to the transaction application and/or the RM application.] in view of ¶0026[The user may configure an account with the cloud storage system, such as upon, prior to, or after installing the receipt manager (RM) application.]);
detect, an interaction between a user of the user device and an entity via the electronic application (Figs. 4 and 5; ¶0055[The process may start at 402, when a user wishes to conduct a transaction with a merchant 415. At 404, the user may use his or her client 405 (e.g., portable device) to initiate a transaction with a merchant 415 at a PoS terminal or online.] in view of ¶0062[the TPS server 535 may determine if the transaction is authorized at 526.]);
extract interaction data associated with the detected interaction from the electronic application, wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed prior to or during the interaction between the user and the entity via the electronic application (Fig. 4; ¶0056[a paper receipt or a confirmation page may be provided to the user's client 405. The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424] in view of ¶0036[the RM application may obtain the data package and extract information in the data package to create and display the receipt corresponding to the transaction.]); and
transmit the extracted interaction data to the remote device (Fig. 4[438]; ¶0058[Referring to FIG. 4, at 436, the cloud server 425 may parse the receipt received from the client 405, and send the receipt identifier, along with the receipt data, to the TPS server 435. The TPS server 435 may receive the receipt identifier and the receipt data at 438.]);
receiving, via the remote device, interaction processing data associated with the entity (Figs. 1A and 4; ¶0058[Referring to FIG. 4, at 436, the cloud server 425 may parse the receipt received from the client 405, and send the receipt identifier, along with the receipt data, to the TPS server 435. The TPS server 435 may receive the receipt identifier and the receipt data at 438.]);
comparing, by the remote device, the extracted interaction data and the received interaction processing data (Fig. 4; ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data]);
determining, by the remote device, whether the received interaction processing data corresponds to the detected interaction based on the comparison (Fig. 4; ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction]); and
in response to determining a correspondence between the detected interaction and the interaction processing data, storing, by the remote device, the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data in a data storage associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶0058[the cloud server 425 may communicate directly with the TPS server 435 to link the receipts with corresponding transactions… The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction… link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose to monitor activity of second application on the user device and separate from the first electronic application to detect based on the monitoring an interaction via the second application, interactions from the second application via the second application.
However, Namuduru et al., hereinafter, Namuduru, teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 2, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses further comprising: receiving, via a user interface operatively connected with the remote device, a request for data associated with the user (Fig. 8D; ¶0043[The user 205b may navigate through the online account site or application to a transaction summary page (e.g., FIGS. 8C and 8D). At 260, the user may select a link or an icon for receipt (e.g., 825f, FIG. 8D) next to a desired transaction to view the receipt corresponding to the transaction. The client 215b may receive the user's selection and may generate and send to the TPS server 235b a receipt request message 262a.]); and
in response to receiving the request, causing the user interface to output the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data in a standardized format (Fig. 8D; ¶0043[The user 205b may navigate through the online account site or application to a transaction summary page (e.g., FIGS. 8C and 8D). At 260, the user may select a link or an icon for receipt (e.g., 825f, FIG. 8D) next to a desired transaction to view the receipt corresponding to the transaction. The client 215b may receive the user's selection and may generate and send to the TPS server 235b a receipt request message 262a.] in view of ¶0085[the receipt may be converted to a standard format (e.g., images may be converted to PDF for text recognition)]).
Regarding Claim 3, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Britt discloses further comprising: in response to determining the correspondence, causing the first electronic application to output a notification indicative of the correspondence (Fig. 4; ¶0057[the RM application may mark a receipt entry on the application with a sync or location status indicator] in view of ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction. As the linking associates the receipt identifier with the corresponding transaction, the TPS server 435 may provide users direct access to stored receipts from their user accounts with the TPS server 435… link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435.]; Examiner notes that a receipt marked with an indicator is comparable to outputting a notification indicative of correspondence).
Regarding Claim 4, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses further comprising: causing the first electronic application to prompt the user to enter additional interaction data associated with the detected interaction; receiving, at the remote device and from the user device, the additional interaction data; and appending the additional interaction data to the extracted interaction data (Fig. 4; ¶0058[In some implementations, the receipt data may be incomplete or inadequate to identify a transaction. In such a situation, multiple receipts may be associated with a transaction, or a receipt may be associated with multiple transactions. The TPS server 435 may then provide the user an opportunity to definitively identify and associate receipts or receipt identifiers with a particular transaction. Such definitive user-assisted link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435.]).
Regarding Claim 5, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses wherein detecting the interaction is based on one or more of a website address of a website visited by the user via the electronic application, content of the website, an interaction or pattern of interactions of the user with the website via the electronic application, or entry of data associated with a predetermined interaction element by the user into the website via the electronic application (Fig. 2A; ¶0034[At 202a, the user 205a may provide payment information to a merchant 225a (e.g., merchant access device or merchant server) for a transaction. When the transaction is conducted online using an electronic wallet account or payment cards, the user may input wallet authentication details (e.g., wallet account username and password) or payment card information (e.g., payment card number, name, expiration date, security code, billing address, and/or the like) to his or her client 215a, which in turn creates and sends a purchase request 202b to the merchant server 225a.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose a second application on the user device, an interaction via the second application, interactions from the second application.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 7, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses further comprising: causing the first electronic application to inject predetermined interaction data into the electronic application (¶0034[At 202a, the user 205a may provide payment information to a merchant 225a (e.g., merchant access device or merchant server) for a transaction. When the transaction is conducted online using an electronic wallet account or payment cards, the user may input wallet authentication details (e.g., wallet account username and password) or payment card information (e.g., payment card number, name, expiration date, security code, billing address, and/or the like) to his or her client 215a, which in turn creates and sends a purchase request 202b to the merchant server 225a.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose a second application on the user device.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 8, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed in a background context that is opaque to the user of the user device (¶0056[the receipts sent by the merchant 415 following a transaction may automatically be added to the RM application without explicit user instructions. The user may turn on such automatic addition of receipts to the RM application by modifying the RM application settings.]).
Regarding Claim 9, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses wherein the extracting of the interaction data includes capturing a screen-shot of the electronic application (¶0056[The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose a second application on the user device.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 11, Britt discloses a computer-implemented method for recordation of interaction data, comprising (Fig. 2A; Abstract [The ELECTRONIC RECEIPT MANAGER APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS (“ERM”) transforms transaction initiation requests and receipt requests via ERM components into receipt formatting, organization, storage and linkage with transactions.]):
causing a first electronic application installed on and operating on a user device to (Figs. 1A, 1B[showing an electronic application on a user device], and 2A; ¶0025[A user (or a consumer) may use his or her portable device 105 to conduct a transaction with a merchant 110. The transaction may be conducted at a point of sale (PoS) terminal, online, between portable devices, and/or the like.]; Examiner notes that the Transaction Processing System Server is comparable to a remote device):
activity of a electronic application installed on and operating on the user device (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3; ¶0050[At 305, the receipt identifier generation engine may be executed, such as simultaneously with the RM application, in response to the transaction application and/or the RM application.] in view of ¶0026[The user may configure an account with the cloud storage system, such as upon, prior to, or after installing the receipt manager (RM) application.]);
detect, an interaction between a user of the user device and an entity via the electronic application (Figs. 4 and 5; ¶0055[The process may start at 402, when a user wishes to conduct a transaction with a merchant 415. At 404, the user may use his or her client 405 (e.g., portable device) to initiate a transaction with a merchant 415 at a PoS terminal or online.] in view of ¶0062[the TPS server 535 may determine if the transaction is authorized at 526.]);
extract interaction data associated with the detected interaction from the electronic application, wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed prior to or during the interaction between the user and the entity via the electronic application (Fig. 4; ¶0056[a paper receipt or a confirmation page may be provided to the user's client 405. The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424] in view of ¶0036[the RM application may obtain the data package and extract information in the data package to create and display the receipt corresponding to the transaction.]); and
transmit the extracted interaction data to a device remote from the user device (Fig. 4[438]; ¶0058[Referring to FIG. 4, at 436, the cloud server 425 may parse the receipt received from the client 405, and send the receipt identifier, along with the receipt data, to the TPS server 435. The TPS server 435 may receive the receipt identifier and the receipt data at 438.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose to monitor activity of second application on the user device and separate from the first electronic application to detect based on the monitoring an interaction via the second application, interactions from the second application via the second application.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 12, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, Britt discloses wherein: the extracting of the interaction data is performed in a background context that is opaque to the user of the user device (¶0056[the receipts sent by the merchant 415 following a transaction may automatically be added to the RM application without explicit user instructions. The user may turn on such automatic addition of receipts to the RM application by modifying the RM application settings.]); and
the method further comprises: receiving, via the remote device, interaction processing data associated with the entity (Figs. 1A and 4; ¶0058[Referring to FIG. 4, at 436, the cloud server 425 may parse the receipt received from the client 405, and send the receipt identifier, along with the receipt data, to the TPS server 435. The TPS server 435 may receive the receipt identifier and the receipt data at 438.]);
determining, by the remote device, whether the received interaction processing data corresponds to the detected interaction based on a comparison of the interaction processing data with the extracted interaction data of the detected interaction (Fig. 4; ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction]); and
in response to determining a correspondence between the detected interaction and the interaction processing data, storing, by the remote device, the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data in a data storage associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶0058[the cloud server 425 may communicate directly with the TPS server 435 to link the receipts with corresponding transactions… The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction… link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435]).
Regarding Claim 13, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, Britt discloses further comprising: receiving, via a user interface operatively connected with the remote device, a request for data associated with the user (Fig. 8D; ¶0043[The user 205b may navigate through the online account site or application to a transaction summary page (e.g., FIGS. 8C and 8D). At 260, the user may select a link or an icon for receipt (e.g., 825f, FIG. 8D) next to a desired transaction to view the receipt corresponding to the transaction. The client 215b may receive the user's selection and may generate and send to the TPS server 235b a receipt request message 262a.]); and
in response to receiving the request, causing the user interface to output the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data in a standardized format (Fig. 8D; ¶0043[The user 205b may navigate through the online account site or application to a transaction summary page (e.g., FIGS. 8C and 8D). At 260, the user may select a link or an icon for receipt (e.g., 825f, FIG. 8D) next to a desired transaction to view the receipt corresponding to the transaction. The client 215b may receive the user's selection and may generate and send to the TPS server 235b a receipt request message 262a.] in view of ¶0085[the receipt may be converted to a standard format (e.g., images may be converted to PDF for text recognition)]).
Regarding Claim 14, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, Britt discloses further comprising: in response to determining the correspondence, causing the first electronic application to output a notification indicative of the correspondence (Fig. 4; ¶0057[the RM application may mark a receipt entry on the application with a sync or location status indicator] in view of ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction. As the linking associates the receipt identifier with the corresponding transaction, the TPS server 435 may provide users direct access to stored receipts from their user accounts with the TPS server 435… link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435.]; Examiner notes that a receipt marked with an indicator is comparable to outputting a notification indicative of correspondence).
Regarding Claim 15, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, Britt discloses further comprising: causing the first electronic application to prompt the user to enter additional interaction data associated with the detected interaction; receiving, at the remote device and from the user device, the additional interaction data; and appending the additional interaction data to the extracted interaction data (Fig. 4; ¶0058[In some implementations, the receipt data may be incomplete or inadequate to identify a transaction. In such a situation, multiple receipts may be associated with a transaction, or a receipt may be associated with multiple transactions. The TPS server 435 may then provide the user an opportunity to definitively identify and associate receipts or receipt identifiers with a particular transaction. Such definitive user-assisted link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435.]).
Regarding Claim 16, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, Britt discloses wherein detecting the interaction is based on one or more of a website address of a website visited by the user via the electronic application, content of the website, an interaction or pattern of interactions of the user with the website via the electronic application, or entry of data associated with a predetermined interaction element by the user into the website via the electronic application (Fig. 2A; ¶0034[At 202a, the user 205a may provide payment information to a merchant 225a (e.g., merchant access device or merchant server) for a transaction. When the transaction is conducted online using an electronic wallet account or payment cards, the user may input wallet authentication details (e.g., wallet account username and password) or payment card information (e.g., payment card number, name, expiration date, security code, billing address, and/or the like) to his or her client 215a, which in turn creates and sends a purchase request 202b to the merchant server 225a.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose a second application on the user device, an interaction via the second application, interactions from the second application.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 18, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, Britt discloses further comprising: causing the first electronic application to inject predetermined interaction data into the electronic application (¶0034[At 202a, the user 205a may provide payment information to a merchant 225a (e.g., merchant access device or merchant server) for a transaction. When the transaction is conducted online using an electronic wallet account or payment cards, the user may input wallet authentication details (e.g., wallet account username and password) or payment card information (e.g., payment card number, name, expiration date, security code, billing address, and/or the like) to his or her client 215a, which in turn creates and sends a purchase request 202b to the merchant server 225a.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose a second application on the user device.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Regarding Claim 20, Britt discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for recordation of interaction data, the instructions executable by at least one processor of a remote device to perform operations, including (Figs. 2A and 9; Abstract [The ELECTRONIC RECEIPT MANAGER APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS (“ERM”) transforms transaction initiation requests and receipt requests via ERM components into receipt formatting, organization, storage and linkage with transactions.] in view of ¶0095[processors 903 may be referred to as central processing units (CPU)… memory storage into which data may be saved; and processors by which information may be processed] and Claim 14):
causing a first electronic application installed on and operating on a user device to (Figs. 1A, 1B[showing an electronic application on a user device], and 2A; ¶0025[A user (or a consumer) may use his or her portable device 105 to conduct a transaction with a merchant 110. The transaction may be conducted at a point of sale (PoS) terminal, online, between portable devices, and/or the like.]; Examiner notes that the Transaction Processing System Server is comparable to a remote device):
activity of a electronic application installed on and operating on the user device (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3; ¶0050[At 305, the receipt identifier generation engine may be executed, such as simultaneously with the RM application, in response to the transaction application and/or the RM application.] in view of ¶0026[The user may configure an account with the cloud storage system, such as upon, prior to, or after installing the receipt manager (RM) application.]);
detect, an interaction between a user of the user device and an entity via the electronic application (Figs. 4 and 5; ¶0055[The process may start at 402, when a user wishes to conduct a transaction with a merchant 415. At 404, the user may use his or her client 405 (e.g., portable device) to initiate a transaction with a merchant 415 at a PoS terminal or online.] in view of ¶0062[the TPS server 535 may determine if the transaction is authorized at 526.]);
extract interaction data associated with the detected interaction from the electronic application, wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed prior to or during the interaction between the user and the entity via the electronic application (Fig. 4; ¶0056[a paper receipt or a confirmation page may be provided to the user's client 405. The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424] in view of ¶0036[the RM application may obtain the data package and extract information in the data package to create and display the receipt corresponding to the transaction.]); and
transmit the extracted interaction data to the remote device (Fig. 4[438]; ¶0058[Referring to FIG. 4, at 436, the cloud server 425 may parse the receipt received from the client 405, and send the receipt identifier, along with the receipt data, to the TPS server 435. The TPS server 435 may receive the receipt identifier and the receipt data at 438.]);
receiving interaction processing data associated with the entity (Figs. 1A and 4; ¶0058[Referring to FIG. 4, at 436, the cloud server 425 may parse the receipt received from the client 405, and send the receipt identifier, along with the receipt data, to the TPS server 435. The TPS server 435 may receive the receipt identifier and the receipt data at 438.]);
comparing the extracted interaction data and the received interaction processing data (Fig. 4; ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data]);
determining whether the received interaction processing data corresponds to the detected interaction based on the comparison (Fig. 4; ¶0058[The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction]); and
in response to determining a correspondence between the detected interaction and the interaction processing data, storing the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data in a data storage associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶0058[the cloud server 425 may communicate directly with the TPS server 435 to link the receipts with corresponding transactions… The TPS server 435 may examine the transaction records associated with the user to identify a transaction having information that matches the receipt data. At 440, the TPS server 435 may link the receipt identifier to the identified transaction… link between a receipt and a transaction may then be stored in the TPS server 435, and reflected in the transaction summary in the user's account with the TPS server 435]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose to monitor activity of second application on the user device and separate from the first electronic application to detect based on the monitoring an interaction via the second application, interactions from the second application via the second application.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The system of Namuduru is applicable to the system of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt in view of Namuduru in view of Turgeman et al. (US 2023/0230085 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses further comprising: causing the user device to detected interaction with regard to one or more of at least one predetermined website, at least one predetermined item, or at least one predetermined interaction element (Figs. 4 and 5; ¶0055[The process may start at 402, when a user wishes to conduct a transaction with a merchant 415. At 404, the user may use his or her client 405 (e.g., portable device) to initiate a transaction with a merchant 415 at a PoS terminal or online.] in view of ¶0062[the TPS server 535 may determine if the transaction is authorized at 526.]).
Although Britt discloses a user interacting with an online merchant, Britt in view of Namuduru does not explicitly teach causing the device to limit the interaction.
However, Turgeman et al., hereinafter, Turgeman, teaches limiting a detected interaction and extracting data prior to a detected interaction being completed (Fig. 2F; ¶¶0048-0049[the end-user device may be configured by the system to actively present to the user one or more requirements or challenges, such as, a requirement a to speak or to utter or to say specific part(s) of the transaction details while also recording a video of the user. This speech or audio stream is recorded by the end-user device. The sound and video recordings can then be cross referenced to ensure validity. In a demonstrative example, user Richard is entering data into his smartphone to command a wire transfer; the process takes him 50 seconds; during this data entry process, an audio-and-video clip is captured by the smartphone; at the 27th second of the process, the application causes the smartphone to display an on-screen message of “Please say now the word Passport”, and/or to playback an audio clip that says “Please say now the word Passport”; wherein the particular word (“Passport”) is selected randomly from a pool of pre-defined words or phrases; this on-screen message or audio message should cause user Richard to say the word “Passport” in the next few seconds that followed that message. The remote server may then verify or check, whether the particular portions of the captured audio (or, of the captured video-and-audio) indeed reflect such word(s) spoken by the user (optionally, utilizing a speech-to-text converter or an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) unit to convert the captured audio into a string of characters or into word(s) for matching purposes), as a condition for approving or rejecting the submitted transaction… and this may be used for transaction verification, or for rejecting or approving a submitted transaction]).
The method of Turgeman is applicable to the method of Britt in view of Namuduru as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of user interactions as taught by Britt in view of Namuduru to include limiting a user interaction and extracting interaction data prior to completion of the interaction as taught by Turgeman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in view of Namuduru in order to directly authenticating users and transactions (¶0021).
Regarding Claim 10, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Britt discloses wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed to the detected interaction being completed (Fig. 4; ¶0056[a paper receipt or a confirmation page may be provided to the user's client 405. The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424] in view of ¶0036[the RM application may obtain the data package and extract information in the data package to create and display the receipt corresponding to the transaction.]).
Although Britt discloses extracting interaction data, Britt in view of Namuduru does not explicitly teach extracting data prior to the interaction being completed.
However, Turgeman teaches limiting a detected interaction and extracting data prior to a detected interaction being completed (Fig. 2F; ¶¶0048-0049[the end-user device may be configured by the system to actively present to the user one or more requirements or challenges, such as, a requirement a to speak or to utter or to say specific part(s) of the transaction details while also recording a video of the user. This speech or audio stream is recorded by the end-user device. The sound and video recordings can then be cross referenced to ensure validity. In a demonstrative example, user Richard is entering data into his smartphone to command a wire transfer; the process takes him 50 seconds; during this data entry process, an audio-and-video clip is captured by the smartphone; at the 27th second of the process, the application causes the smartphone to display an on-screen message of “Please say now the word Passport”, and/or to playback an audio clip that says “Please say now the word Passport”; wherein the particular word (“Passport”) is selected randomly from a pool of pre-defined words or phrases; this on-screen message or audio message should cause user Richard to say the word “Passport” in the next few seconds that followed that message. The remote server may then verify or check, whether the particular portions of the captured audio (or, of the captured video-and-audio) indeed reflect such word(s) spoken by the user (optionally, utilizing a speech-to-text converter or an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) unit to convert the captured audio into a string of characters or into word(s) for matching purposes), as a condition for approving or rejecting the submitted transaction… and this may be used for transaction verification, or for rejecting or approving a submitted transaction]).
The method of Turgeman is applicable to the method of Britt in view of Namuduru as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of user interactions as taught by Britt in view of Namuduru to include limiting a user interaction and extracting interaction data prior to completion of the interaction as taught by Turgeman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in view of Namuduru in order to directly authenticating users and transactions (¶0021).
Regarding Claim 17, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, Britt discloses further comprising: causing the user device to detected interaction with regard to one or more of at least one predetermined website, at least one predetermined item, or at least one predetermined interaction element (Figs. 4 and 5; ¶0055[The process may start at 402, when a user wishes to conduct a transaction with a merchant 415. At 404, the user may use his or her client 405 (e.g., portable device) to initiate a transaction with a merchant 415 at a PoS terminal or online.] in view of ¶0062[the TPS server 535 may determine if the transaction is authorized at 526.]).
Although Britt discloses a user interacting with an online merchant, Britt in view of Namuduru does not explicitly teach causing the device to limit the interaction.
However, Turgeman teaches limiting a detected interaction and extracting data prior to a detected interaction being completed (Fig. 2F; ¶¶0048-0049[the end-user device may be configured by the system to actively present to the user one or more requirements or challenges, such as, a requirement a to speak or to utter or to say specific part(s) of the transaction details while also recording a video of the user. This speech or audio stream is recorded by the end-user device. The sound and video recordings can then be cross referenced to ensure validity. In a demonstrative example, user Richard is entering data into his smartphone to command a wire transfer; the process takes him 50 seconds; during this data entry process, an audio-and-video clip is captured by the smartphone; at the 27th second of the process, the application causes the smartphone to display an on-screen message of “Please say now the word Passport”, and/or to playback an audio clip that says “Please say now the word Passport”; wherein the particular word (“Passport”) is selected randomly from a pool of pre-defined words or phrases; this on-screen message or audio message should cause user Richard to say the word “Passport” in the next few seconds that followed that message. The remote server may then verify or check, whether the particular portions of the captured audio (or, of the captured video-and-audio) indeed reflect such word(s) spoken by the user (optionally, utilizing a speech-to-text converter or an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) unit to convert the captured audio into a string of characters or into word(s) for matching purposes), as a condition for approving or rejecting the submitted transaction… and this may be used for transaction verification, or for rejecting or approving a submitted transaction]).
The method of Turgeman is applicable to the method of Britt in view of Namuduru as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of user interactions as taught by Britt in view of Namuduru to include limiting a user interaction and extracting interaction data prior to completion of the interaction as taught by Turgeman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in view of Namuduru in order to directly authenticating users and transactions (¶0021).
Regarding Claim 19, Britt in view of Namuduru teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, Britt discloses wherein: the extracting of the interaction data includes capturing a screen-shot of the electronic application (¶0056[The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424.]); and
the extracting of the interaction data is performed to the detected interaction being completed (Fig. 4; ¶0056[a paper receipt or a confirmation page may be provided to the user's client 405. The user may utilize his or her client 405 to capture an image of the paper receipt and add the image to the RM application at 424] in view of ¶0036[the RM application may obtain the data package and extract information in the data package to create and display the receipt corresponding to the transaction.]).
Although Britt discloses activity on an electronic application operating on a user device, Britt does not explicitly disclose a second application on the user device.
However, Namuduru teaches monitoring activity of a second application on a user device separate from a first application and detecting information based on monitoring the interaction via a second application (Fig. 2; ¶¶0069-0070[the interaction index may monitor each of the user interactions received at each application associated with the electronic network, may monitor each of the requests queried within the application event system and may be used by the application event system to store the interaction logs used to determine the query response… the interaction index may be a Splunk® tool, which may be used for monitoring and observing the applications associated with the electronic network and collecting each of the data provided, generated, and received within and from the application event system.]).
The method of Namuduru is applicable to the method of Britt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify storing the activity of a user on an electronic application as disclosed by Britt to include a second application separate from a first application to detect information based on monitoring as taught by Namuduru. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in order to broadly, accurately, efficiently, and dynamically identify, track, and report application events in an electronic network (¶0002).
Although Britt discloses extracting interaction data, Britt in view of Namuduru does not explicitly teach extracting data prior to the interaction being completed.
However, Turgeman teaches limiting a detected interaction and extracting data prior to a detected interaction being completed (Fig. 2F; ¶¶0048-0049[the end-user device may be configured by the system to actively present to the user one or more requirements or challenges, such as, a requirement a to speak or to utter or to say specific part(s) of the transaction details while also recording a video of the user. This speech or audio stream is recorded by the end-user device. The sound and video recordings can then be cross referenced to ensure validity. In a demonstrative example, user Richard is entering data into his smartphone to command a wire transfer; the process takes him 50 seconds; during this data entry process, an audio-and-video clip is captured by the smartphone; at the 27th second of the process, the application causes the smartphone to display an on-screen message of “Please say now the word Passport”, and/or to playback an audio clip that says “Please say now the word Passport”; wherein the particular word (“Passport”) is selected randomly from a pool of pre-defined words or phrases; this on-screen message or audio message should cause user Richard to say the word “Passport” in the next few seconds that followed that message. The remote server may then verify or check, whether the particular portions of the captured audio (or, of the captured video-and-audio) indeed reflect such word(s) spoken by the user (optionally, utilizing a speech-to-text converter or an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) unit to convert the captured audio into a string of characters or into word(s) for matching purposes), as a condition for approving or rejecting the submitted transaction… and this may be used for transaction verification, or for rejecting or approving a submitted transaction]).
The method of Turgeman is applicable to the method of Britt in view of Namuduru as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to logging user data and interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of user interactions as taught by Britt in view of Namuduru to include limiting a user interaction and extracting interaction data prior to completion of the interaction as taught by Turgeman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Britt in view of Namuduru in order to directly authenticating users and transactions (¶0021).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-16 of the remarks filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the previous 35
USC § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-12 of the remarks that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP 2106.04, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception in Step 2A is now evaluated using a two-prong inquiry. Prong One asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under that prong, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 [“The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.”]). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04 instructs examiners to refer to the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes) in order to identify abstract ideas. As noted above and in the previous office action, the claims recite tracking purchases made by employees at a company. Specifically, a method for recordation of interaction data, comprising: monitor activity; detect, based on the monitoring, an interaction between a user and an entity; extract interaction data associated with the detected interaction, wherein the extracting of the interaction data is performed prior to or during the interaction between the user and the entity; and transmit the extracted interaction data; receiving, interaction processing data associated with the entity; comparing, the extracted interaction data and the received interaction processing data; determining, whether the received interaction processing data corresponds to the detected interaction based on the comparison; and in response to determining a correspondence between the detected interaction and the interaction processing data, storing, the extracted interaction data and the interaction processing data associated with the user is an advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. This is further illustrated in ¶0001, ¶0024, and ¶0034 of the instant specification which discusses that the invention improves tracking purchases made by employees at a company. This is an abstract idea because it is a concept of business relations which makes it a method of organizing human activity (i.e., one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations also encompasses “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that it recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes.
Applicant argues on pages 12-15 of the remarks that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving a technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states "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 MPEP further states that "[t]he 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," and that, "conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology" (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of tracking purchases made by employees at a company. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in an improved budget and purchase tracking of an employee at a company, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving any type of technology. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing generic computing components for tracking purchases made by employees at a company, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues on pages 15 and 16 of the remarks that the amended claims are non-routine, unconventional, and not well understood, amounting to an inventive concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 20 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the invention is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-19 of the remarks filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new 103 rejection of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET.
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.
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/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.
/AHOORA LADONI/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
