DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 11/16/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 6/3/2026.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 1, 5, 16, 19, 21 are amended
b. Claims 6, 8, 13 are cancelled
c. Claims 22-23 are new
Overall, claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-23 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-5, 7-15 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 16-18 are directed to a system computer, and claims 19-20 are directed to executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions
[B] receiving first data representing a first digital transaction, the first data including: a first token associated with a first originator and a first user; and a first character string associated with the first user;
[C] determining whether the first data is associated with an existing container in memory using at least one of the first token or the first character string;
[D] in response to determining that the first data is not associated with an existing container, generating a first container and a second token that represents the first container, the first container being a logical data container in memory associated with the first originator and the first user;
[E] storing the first data in the first container;
[F] receiving second data representing a second digital transaction;
[G] determining whether the second digital transaction is associated with the first originator or the first user; and
[H] in response to determining that the second digital transaction is associated with the first originator or the first user: storing the second data in the first container.
[I] processing, by parsing both (i) the stored first data and (ii) the stored second data from the first container, the first and second digital transaction.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) recites: determining the association of an existing container and generating a transaction container (e.g. digital wallet, digital account) ([C], [D]); determining the nature of the transaction ([G]); storing the received data ([H]); and parsing the data from the first and the second containers [(I)], which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “computer,” and “storage devices” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving transaction data ([B]), storing transaction data ([E]), receiving second transaction data ([F]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 16, 19 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2 recites:
[A] determining that the second data includes the first token.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites:
[A] determining that the second data includes the first character string.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[A] determining that the second digital transaction is associated with the first originator and the first user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] associating the second token with at least one of the first token or the first character string.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claims 17, 20, recites:
[A] receiving third data representing a third digital transaction, the third data including: a third token associated with a second originator of the third digital transaction and a user; and a second character string associated with the user;
[B] determining that no containers of a set of containers are associated with the third token and the second character string; and
[C] generating a second container represented by a fourth token, the second container being associated with the second originator and the user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claims 17, 20) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites:
[A] generating the second token by computing a digital hash or a random string of characters.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”).
Therefore, dependent claim 21 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 9-10, 14-15, 22-23 recite:
wherein the user is the first user.
wherein the first data and the second data are received from a same entity.
wherein the first data and the second data are received from different entities.
wherein the first container comprises an electronic storage container.
wherein the first data includes at least one of the group consisting of: a date of the first digital transaction; a time of the first digital transaction; an amount of the first digital transaction; a location of the first digital transaction.
wherein the first digital transaction comprises a digital transaction of tender.
wherein the second token associates the first container with the first originator and the first user.
wherein the second token is stored in the metadata of the first container.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the user; the first and second data; container; digital transaction – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“storing and analyzing information on commercial digital transactions”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 9-10, 14-15 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall (US 2014/0244376), in view of Yan (US 2023/0230065), in further view of Lennert et al (US 2018/0189871).
Regarding Claims 1, 16, 19; 4, 18; 11; 12: Wall: A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: {see at least fig1, rc102, rc104, rc106, rc108, [0027]-[0033]}
receiving first data representing a first digital transaction, the first data including: a first
storing the first data in the first container; {see at least fig1, rc106, rc112, [0029] consumer database, offer database (based on BRI (MPEP 2111 (reads on container, i.e., storage, associated with a user); fig3, rc106, [0044]-[0045] offer database; fig4A, rc108, rc408, [0053] … list with available off-peak offers (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on storage container (e.g. wallet) used to store offers)}
receiving second data representing a second digital transaction; {see at least [0053] list of offers to consumer (reads on second data and second transaction)}
determining whether the second digital transaction is associated with the first originator or the first user; and {see at least fig4A, rc402-rc404, [0050]-[0052] multiple offers from the same merchant (fig, rc102) to consumer}
in response to determining that the second digital transaction is associated with the first originator or the first user, based on an association between the second data and the first data. {Wall fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that storing steps can occur only if the conditions (i.e. same merchant offering to same customer) are met – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
storing the second data in the first container, and {see at least fig4A, rc408, [0053] … list with available off-peak offers}
Wall does not disclose, however, Yan discloses:
… token … {see at least [0018], [0026] tokens}
determining whether the first data is associated with an existing container in memory using at least one of the first token or the first character string; {see at least [0018], [0026] token (reads on data associated with container); digital wallet (reads on container in memory); credit token (reads on first token)}
in response to determining that the first data is not associated with an existing container, generating a first container and a second token that represents the first container, the first container being a logical data container in memory associated with the first originator and the first user; {see at least [0018], [0026] first digital wallet with tokens (reads on first container in memory)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wall to include the elements of Yan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to store the offers in memory. In the instant case, Wall evidently discloses creating a container with offers. Yan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of an electronic wallet in memory, in the same or similar context. Since both container with offers, as well as electronic wallet are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wall, as well as Yan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wall / Yan.
Wall, Yan does not disclose, however, Lennert discloses:
processing, by parsing both (i) the stored first data and (ii) the stored second data from the first container, the first and second digital transaction. {see at least [0062] parse data (reads on first data and second data, because “data” is the plural from “datum”); parse transaction in parallel or one b one (reads on first transaction and second transaction)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wall to include the elements of Wall, Yan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to analyze the transactions. In the instant case, Wall evidently discloses creating an electronic wallet with offers. Wall, Yan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of parsing data and transactions in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both creating an electronic wallet with offers, as well as parsing data and transactions are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wall, Yan as well as Lennert, would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wall Yan / Lennert.
Regarding Claim 2: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall further discloses: wherein determining that the second digital transaction is associated with the first originator comprises
determining that the second data includes the first token. {see at least fig4A, rc408, rc410, [0053] all offers form the same merchant (reads on first token)}
Regarding Claim 3: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall further discloses: wherein determining that the second digital transaction is associated with the first user comprises
determining that the second data includes the first character string. {see at least fig7, rc702, rc704, [0075]-[0076] each offer includes merchant identification, transaction identification (reads on character string)}
Regarding Claim 9: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall further discloses:
wherein the first data and the second data are received from a same entity. {see at least fig4A, rc402, [0051] merchant … multiple offers (reads on same entity)}
Regarding Claim 14: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall further discloses:
wherein the first data includes at least one of the group consisting of: a date of the first digital transaction; a time of the first digital transaction; an amount of the first digital transaction; and a location of the first digital transaction. {see at least [0075] time, transaction modifier}
Regarding Claim 15: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall further discloses:
wherein the first digital transaction comprises a digital transaction of tender. {see at least [0008] off-peak offer reads on digital tender)}
Regarding Claim 23: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall further discloses:
wherein the second token is stored in the metadata of the first container. {see at least fig1, rc106, rc112, [0029] consumer database, offer database (based on BRI (MPEP 2111 (reads on container, i.e., storage, associated with a user); fig3, rc106, [0044]-[0045] offer database; fig4A, rc108, rc408, [0053] … list with available off-peak offers (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on storage container (e.g. wallet) used to store offers)}
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall (US 2014/0244376), in view of Yan (US 2023/0230065), in further view of Lennert et al (US 2018/0189871), in further view of Kantor et al (US 2006/0224454).
Regarding Claim 10: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall, Yan, Lennert does not disclose, however Kantor discloses:
wherein the first data and the second data are received from different entities. {see at least [0048] individual files (reads on container) for each individual merchant (reds on originator) (reads on separate entities)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wall, Yan, Lennert to include the elements of Kantor. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to easily recognize where the offers come from. In the instant case, Wall, Yan, Lennert evidently discloses creating an electronic wallet with offers. Kantor is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating an individual wallet for each originator in the same or similar context. Since both creating an electronic wallet with offers, as well as creating an individual wallet for each originator are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wall, Yan, Lennert, as well as Kantor would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wall, Yan, Lennert / Kantor.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall (US 2014/0244376), in view of Yan (US 2023/0230065), in further view of Lennert et al (US 2018/0189871), in further view of Carbou et al (US 2014/0123266).
Regarding Claim 21: Wall, Yan, Lennert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wall, Yan, Lennert does not disclose, however, Carbou discloses: wherein generating the first container represented by the second token comprises:
generating the second token by computing a digital hash or a random string of characters. {see at least [0129] The authentication token is generated by a digital hash function}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wall, Yan, Lennert to include the elements of Carbou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to diversify the token offer. In the instant case, Wall, Yan, Lennert evidently discloses creating an electronic wallet with offers. Carbou is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of generating a second token in the same or similar context. Since both creating an electronic wallet with offers, as well as generating a second token are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wall, Yan, Lennert, as well as Carbou would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Wall, Yan, Lennert / Carbou.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 17, 20, 22 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160292783 A1 Nair; Rahul ONLINE MARKETPLACE INTERFACE HAVING A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED USER OFFERS - There are provided systems and methods for an online marketplace having a network of qualified user offers. A service provider may offer an online marketplace to connect lenders and borrowers. A lender may establish a financial offer with the online marketplace by entering at least an amount that the lender wishes to provide to a borrower to the online marketplace. The lender may also establish terms for acceptance of the financial offer, including required collateral, which may take the form of a virtual asset of the borrower. The borrower may access the online marketplace to search and browse financial offers. Once the borrower finds and/or negotiates an acceptable offer, the borrower may receive the amount for the offer after completing the terms of acceptance, including providing the virtual asset to the lender. The lender may then prevent access and/or use of the virtual asset in the event of default.
US 20150120411 A1 Kneen; Ben MERCHANT OFFER RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM - Systems and methods for recommending offers to merchants for provision to their customers include a database storing customer offer data for a plurality of customers and a plurality of offers and that details the results of providing one or more of the plurality of offers to each of the plurality of customers. Identifying information about a first merchant is received and used to retrieve a first subset of the plurality of customers that are associated with the first merchant. The first subset of the plurality of customers is used to review the customer offer data to determine the results of providing the one or more of the plurality of offers to each of the first subset of customers. A first offer that is associated with a higher amount of participation results by the first subset of the plurality of customers relative to the others of the plurality of offers is then determined and provided for display to the first merchant.
US 20200034813 A1 Calinog; Millicent et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SCHEDULING BUSINESS-TO-INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS - Systems and methods for facilitating transactions include determining an amount of funds that a payer owes a payee, determining a first payment offer that is for the amount of funds that the payer owes the payee and a first target payment date, providing the first payment offer to the payee, receiving a user input from a payee device, generating a second payment offer of an offered amount of funds and a second target payment date where the offered amount of funds is lower than the amount of funds that the payer owes the payee and the second target payment date is prior to the first target payment date, providing a notification to the payee, receiving a user input from the payee device, and initiating an electronic funds transfer from a source account of the payer to a target account of the payee.
US 20180232693 A1 Gillen; Robert J. et al. Autonomous services selection system and distributed transportation database(s) - Systems and methods are provided for the automated determination and facilitation of a transportation plan for transporting a shipment unit containing at least one shipment unit through one or more transportation networks corresponding to one or more carriers. An exemplary method comprises receiving and storing in a distributed ledger service offers for transporting a shipment unit; receiving and storing in a distributed ledger shipment unit data comprising an origin, a destination, and transportation parameters; matching service offers stored in the distributed ledger to the shipment unit data to generate a transportation plan for transporting the shipment unit in accordance with the shipment unit data, each service offer corresponding to a leg of the transportation plan, receiving and storing in the distributed ledger an indication of completion of a particular leg of the transportation plan, and causing payment of an entity for transporting the shipment unit along the particular leg.
US 20170068984 A1 Joshi; Sunil Pradeep et al. CUSTOMER REWARD SYSTEMS AND METHODS - Offers are provided to consumers by a service on behalf of merchants in response to purchases by the consumer at the merchant, a collaborating merchant, or self-issued from a web site. Offers may be cloned by a consumer and provided to another user. Points may be assigned to consumers and used to purchase offers. Offers are generated with custom parameters for each customer. Offer parameters (e.g., duration, price, benefit) may be varied over time to determine successful parameters that are likely to result in offer redemption. Merchants may collaborate such that issuance of an offer for a first merchant results in issuance by the service of an offer for a second merchant. A fee may be charged by the service to the first merchant with at least a portion of the fee being paid to the second merchant.
US 9195984 B1 Spector; Howard et al. Systems and methods for processing transactions using a wallet - The invention provides a wallet vault, in the form of a tangibly embodied processing machine, disposed in communication with a financial payment network, the wallet vault comprising a communication portion that inputs and outputs information and a processing portion. The processing portion may perform processing including storing token information of a customer and real credentials of the customer, the token information associated with the real credentials of the customer, the real credentials constituted by an account number of the customer; inputting the token information with transaction ID information from a processing entity in the financial network, the token information with transaction ID information generated by a merchant processing a transaction for the customer; associating the token information of the customer with the real credentials of the customer; and outputting the associated real credentials with the transaction ID information to the processing entity in the financial network. The wallet vault may be associated with a wallet from which the transaction is initiated, and the wallet associated with the merchant.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “At least the phrase "the first container being a logical data container in memory" requires a concrete, addressable data architecture constraint within a computer system. This specific architecture does not use a computer merely as an object to host an abstract idea; it alters, with specificity, how data objects are allocated and stored inside computer memory to execute a localized data operation-thereby improving data security and access by, for example, allowing access to containers through tokenization separate from user identities. By restricting the method to this specific conditional sequence of memory allocation and token generation, the claim sets forth a precise technological layout governing how data elements are isolated and stored within memory boundaries to allow for localized data parsing.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
“A precise technological layout” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Because the claim sets forth a concrete, technologically constrained application that does not monopolize the underlying exception, the claim integrates the subject matter into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The essence of the argument appears to be that since the Office has not shown that the claims “would preempt all applications of the alleged abstract idea”, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper. However, as the Federal Circuit pointed out in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015, #2014-1139, 2014-1144), “[while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. ... Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot” (slip op. pp. 14-15). Similarly, in OIP Technologies, Inc. vs. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir., June 11,2015, #2012-1696), the Federal Circuit held “that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract. See buySAFE, Inc. v.Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345”.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The burden is on the Office to demonstrate that an element is "well-understood, routine, [or] conventional." The Action has provided no documentary evidence or industry showing that this specific combination of elements in claim I was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office actions does not allege that claim elements are "well-understood, routine, [or] conventional."
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Because the combination as an entirety is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, the claims recite an inventive concept under Step 2B. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined at step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 16, 19) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 16, 19 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “For instance, Example 2, dealing with "E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page," demonstrates that while individual operations like pulling data or executing generic computer functions are routine in a vacuum, integrating them into a specific structural method to solve data pipeline configurations integrates the concept into a practical application-resulting in patent eligible subject matter. … Example 35 …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a particular Example from the Office published material and use the specific arguments from that Example to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter claimed in that particular Example, which in the instant situation it does not. The Office periodically publishes Examples with detailed analyses only to serve as rational and argumentation models to determine eligibility. Each application has to be considered on its own merits. Examples provided by the Office are nothing more than the name suggests: EXAMPLES, that are to be considered or not, as they are neither laws, nor rules, nor regulations.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights