DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. The Amendment filed 7/10/25 has been entered. Pending amended claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
In sum, claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the respective statutory categories of a process (claims 21-29), a 1st machine (claims 1-9) and a 2nd machine (claims 30-31). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
implementing a data transaction … ;
receiving input … specifying transaction feedback for the data transaction, wherein the transaction feedback includes a transaction information field, feedback indicia, a submit control, or a cancel control;
transmitting a feedback indicator including the transaction feedback and an identifier associated with the data transaction … ;
receiving fulfillment feedback corresponding to a fulfillment transaction associated with the data transaction, wherein the data transaction is mapped to the fulfillment transaction via a transaction mapping; and
outputting, … , the fulfillment feedback corresponding to the fulfillment transaction.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes sub-categories of commercial interactions involving sales/marketing activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: receiving a feedback input for a data (payment) transaction and transmitting an indicator of the data transaction feedback and an identifier of the data transaction such that it is mapped to an associated fulfillment (purchase) transaction as fulfillment transaction feedback).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: at least one “processor”, a “transaction service”, a “transaction” (payment) “application”, a “fulfillment” (purchase) “application”, various “modules” to accomplish claimed functionality of the abstract idea, at least one “graphical user interface”, and at least one “memory” storing executable instructions to accomplish various functions, do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or a communication network or a payment network/service provider. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or a communication or a payment network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 2, 22 and 31 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the data transaction is a payment transaction for a purchased product/service (i.e., a purchase transaction), and the transaction feedback is associated with the payment transaction, which is simply giving more detail regarding the data transaction of the abstract idea, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 3-9 and 23-29 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the fulfillment (purchase transaction) feedback (associated with the data/payment transaction) is received from a certain service, or is output via a certain application, or is output to a certain user interface which may include fulfillment (purchase) transaction details, or is output as a user suggestion and may be stored, which is simply giving further detail of the use of the feedback of the abstract idea, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The following relevant prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See, MPEP §707.05) The examiner considers the following reference(s) pertinent for disclosing various, but not all, features or combination of features of the claimed invention:
Deshpande et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0262832 A1) discloses a system and various methods for processing a purchase transaction (fulfillment transaction) and a payment transaction (data transaction) associated with the purchase transaction via use of a token and a transaction identifier, where data associated with the purchase transaction may feedback to the payment transaction and be used for subsequent transactions. However, this reference appears to fail to disclose, at a minimum, the claimed limitations of:
receive input via a transaction application specifying transaction feedback for the data transaction, wherein the transaction feedback includes a transaction information field, feedback indicia, a submit control, or a cancel control; and
transmit a feedback indicator including the transaction feedback and an identifier associated with the data transaction to a fulfillment application.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed 7/10/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 9-10) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis, the claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated above in the 101 rejection in view of the amended claims.
Since applicant makes no specific allegation of error by the Office in its prior determination that the claims recite a patent ineligible abstract idea, no response is necessary by the Office under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong 2 (Amendment, Pgs. 9-10), alleging that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea recited by the claims because they provide a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), are not persuasive. The claimed subject matter solves a problem of applying feedback for a purchase transaction, which is not a technological problem, but rather, is a data mapping problem for associating feedback for a payment transaction to the underlying associated purchase transaction. Thus, the problem being solved and the claimed subject matter which solves the problem falls into the patent ineligible sub-categories of being a commercial interaction involving sales and/or marketing activities or behaviors, as described above in the §101 rejection in view of the instant amended claims.
In contrast, the subject matter of claim 1 of the USPTO Ex. 34 discussed by applicant does not include subject matter that makes it a patent ineligible commercial interaction involving sales and/or marketing activities or behaviors. Therefore, Ex. 34 is not dispositive on the issue of patentability for the instant claims.
Further, in contrast to applicant’s arguments to the contrary, “fulfillment feedback” for a purchase transaction and/or a payment transaction for the purchase transaction is not a technological problem, but rather, is a problem for a patent ineligible commercial interaction, as described here and above in the §101 rejection.
Since applicant makes no specific allegation of error by the Office in its prior determination that the claims do not include an inventive concept (something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed), no response is necessary by the Office under Step 2B.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR §1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W. King whose telephone number is (571) 270 -5776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 7 AM - 3 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6776.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, or via video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview applicant may call the Examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOSEPH W. KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696