DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on January 20, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, and 25. Claims 3, 7, 15, 18, and 22 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant has amended to claims to overcome the objections set forth in the previous action. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly.
v With respect to the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), Applicant has appropriately amended the claims. The claims have been amended such that they no longer recite that which was identified as being indefinite. These rejections of claims 4, 5, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) have been withdrawn.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
“The Claims Do Not Recite Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity or Mental Processes Because They Encompass Technical Features Beyond the Alleged Abstract Idea…With respect to claim 1…the steps recited here encompass AI, such as using the machine learning model to output the subset of web elements indicating price – in a manner that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. This, the claims do not fall within the “mental processes” grouping…These steps are not "organizing human activity" or "mental processes" as alleged by the Office, because they recite interactions of the computing device, the user device, the website, the interactive elements, using the detection of the transaction pattern to trigger the web scraping and using the machine learning model to extract the web elements indicative of price information. This combination of technical features goes beyond the alleged abstract idea and do not fall within the organizing human activity and mental processes of the abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Reciting features beyond the abstract idea does not mean the claims cannot be directed to subject matter falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s assertion that a human being cannot be “provided, as input…the plurality of web elements” or “receive, as output…a subset of web elements associated with price information for listed items on the website” is not persuasive. The use of technical jargon (e.g., “as input”) does not mean a human cannot receive (or be provided) an indication of the plurality web elements (e.g., text items, image items, textual descriptions of products and/or product names, listed prices, etc.) on a website. On the contrary, a human can view the plurality web elements on a website, they can be told about the plurality web elements on a website, they can be shown a written description of the plurality web elements on a website, etc.. Further, the use of technical jargon (e.g., “as output”) does not mean a human cannot provide a subset of web elements associated with price information for listed items on the website. On the contrary, a human can make one or more observation/judgment regarding the elements (e.g., the text items, image items, textual descriptions of products and/or product names and/or listed prices that they are viewing, that they are told about, etc.) as to which subset of elements (which textual descriptions of products and/or product names, listed prices, etc.) are associated with price information for listed items on the website. As such, these are both functions a human is capable of performing mentally and/or with pen and paper. The general requirement to use a “machine learning model” to perform these steps (e.g., as opposed to doing so manually/mentally by a human) amounts to a requirement to perform this function with a programmed general-purpose computer (and/or limits the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use).
Applicant’s assertion that the claim steps are not "organizing human activity" or "mental processes" because they recite interactions of the computing device, the user device, the website, the interactive elements, using the detection of the transaction pattern to trigger the web scraping and using the machine learning model to extract the web elements indicative of price information, is not persuasive. These requirements, alone and/or in combination with one another, amount to a requirement to perform this function with a programmed general-purpose computer and/or limits the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. The underlying process is one that amounts to a “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. This business process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, a marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) as it is a process for analyzing transaction data and merchant data to generate and display additional item-level transaction data. These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. This is true, regardless of the various “technical features” (i.e., “additional” elements) recited in the claims beyond these steps, as explained in the rejection.
A generically-recited general-purpose computer programmed to perform certain tasks/functions does not constitute a “particular machine or manufacture”. Applicant’s own arguments explain on page 4 that “the steps use well-known components (a processor and a computing device)…” Applicant’s own disclosure explains that the claim elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0029] of the published disclosure which state “a computing device 200 that may be used with one or more of the computational systems is described. The computing device 200 may include a processor 203 for controlling overall operation of the computing device 200 and its associated components, including RAM 205, ROM 207, input/output device 209, communication interface 211, and/or memory 215….In some embodiments, computing device 200 may represent, be incorporated in, and/or include various devices such as a desktop computer, a computer server, a mobile device, such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, any other types of mobile computing devices, and the like, and/or any other type of data processing device…Processor 203 may include a single central processing unit (CPU), which may be a single-core or multicore processor, or may include multiple CPUs. Processor(s) 203 and associated components may allow the computing device 200 to execute a series of computer-readable instructions to perform some or all of the processes described herein”, see also paragraph [0063] “One or more aspects discussed herein may be embodied in computer-usable or readable data and/or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices as described herein”). The recited computer elements are not integral to the claim. The claim language merely requires the use of computers to perform certain functions. The requirement for the extraction of the plurality of elements to be via scraping amounts to a requirement to obtain this data with a programmed general-purpose computer (e.g., as opposed to manually/mentally by a human). The requirement to use a “machine learning model” to determine the subset of elements that are associated with price information (e.g., as opposed to doing so manually/mentally by a human) also amounts to a requirement to perform this function with a programmed general-purpose computer (and/or limits the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use). The requirement to receive certain data from user devices amounts to i) insignificant pre-solution activity and/or ii) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The requirement for the element/price information to be determined from a website (e.g., as opposed to a physical merchant brochure, from physical price tags in a store, etc.) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., internet-based price information). That the information is presented on a user interface having interactive elements or in response to receiving selection(s) of one or more interactive elements also serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., via the internet, as opposed to verbally or using pen and paper correspondence with the user). As such, even though the claims do recite a variety of “additional” elements, all of these “additional” elements (whether considered alone or as an ordered combination) are recited at a high level of generality, and are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and further merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the variety of “additional” elements (whether considered alone or as an ordered combination) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they require a “particular machine or manufacture”.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “published USPTO example 39… At a minimum, the claims recite…Similar to Example 39, although these limitations may involve an abstract idea, these claims do not recite a judicial exception. While training the second machine learning model may encompass a broad array of techniques or activities that could involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitations do not set forth or describe any specific mathematical relationships. The claims do not recite a judicial exception for these additional reasons.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
The instant claims have nothing analogous to the process of training the neural network in Example 39. Further, the claims in Example 39 were found to not recite a judicial exception because there is no recited method or organizing human activity, mental process, and because although some of the limitations are based on mathematical concepts, the concepts are not recited in the claims. In contrast, and as discussed above with respect to Applicant’s first argument, the instant claims recite multiple steps of a process that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. With respect to claim 11, not only does claim 11 depend from claim 1 (which recites multiple steps of a process that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas) the step of training an unspecified machine learning model using labeled transaction data is not analogous to “applying one or more transformations to each digital facial image including
mirroring, rotating, smoothing, or contrast reduction to create a modified set of digital
facial images” to create a first training set and “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set”. Humans are capable of training mathematical models using labeled data. And using the trained models to determine outputs (e.g., detected patterns in data) based on inputs. That the model is required to be a “machine learning model” amounts to a requirement to perform this function with a programmed general-purpose computer (and/or limits the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use).
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “The Claimed Concept Has Practical Application Because It Recites A Particular Solution To A Problem Or A Particular Way To Achieve A Desired Outcome…the claims clearly recite a particular machine or manufacture (e.g., the computing device, the electronic payment network, the user device, the first/second machine learning model, the website and the interactive elements) that "is integral to the claim." Therefore, the claims are "integrated into a practical application" and are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong Two… The additional features recited in claim 1 integrate any possible judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia…At least these features integrate the claims into a practical application… the claims recite a particular solution-namely, monitoring the raw data stream in the electronic payment network, after detecting the pattern, scraping a website to obtain the web elements, receiving, as output from the machine learning model, the subset of web elements indicative of price-to address specific technical challenges in electronic payment systems
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Merely reciting details of a particular solution is not enough to confer eligibility. This is only relevant if the solution is to a technical problem thereby resulting in an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. This is not the case with the instant claims. Applicant’s assertion that the claims address a “specific technical challenges in electronic payment systems” is not persuasive. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous for financial institutions to implement the claimed process for generating item-level transaction data because doing so can enable them to have more granular (e.g., item-level) transaction data associated with individuals which can provide those individuals with greater insight into their purchase history, can help support more helpful/personalized searches, and can help facilitate more personalized advertising (see, for example, paragraphs [0003]-[0006] and [0019] of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical subjective advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved way of generating item-level transaction data).
The computing device is not a “particular machine or manufacture”. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that it may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0029] of the published disclosure which state “a computing device 200 that may be used with one or more of the computational systems is described. The computing device 200 may include a processor 203 for controlling overall operation of the computing device 200 and its associated components, including RAM 205, ROM 207, input/output device 209, communication interface 211, and/or memory 215….In some embodiments, computing device 200 may represent, be incorporated in, and/or include various devices such as a desktop computer, a computer server, a mobile device, such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, any other types of mobile computing devices, and the like, and/or any other type of data processing device…Processor 203 may include a single central processing unit (CPU), which may be a single-core or multicore processor, or may include multiple CPUs. Processor(s) 203 and associated components may allow the computing device 200 to execute a series of computer-readable instructions to perform some or all of the processes described herein”, see also paragraph [0063] “One or more aspects discussed herein may be embodied in computer-usable or readable data and/or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices as described herein”).
The suggestion that the data associated with the card-based transactions is a “raw data stream” that is “in an electronic payment network” and received “from a plurality of user devices” does not amount to a “particular machine or manufacture”. These descriptions serve
merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces (e.g., that have “interactive” elements). It also serves to limit the abstract idea to transaction data from a credit card payment network. This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was also demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The requirement for the extraction of the plurality of elements to be via scraping amounts to a requirement to obtain this data with a programmed general-purpose computer (e.g., as opposed to manually/mentally by a human).
The requirement to use a “machine learning model” to determine the subset of elements that are associated with price information (e.g., as opposed to doing so manually/mentally by a human) also amounts to a requirement to perform this function with a programmed general-purpose computer (and/or limits the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use).
The requirement to receive certain data from user devices amounts to i) insignificant pre-solution activity and/or ii) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The requirement for the element/price information to be determined from a website (e.g., as opposed to a physical merchant brochure, from physical price tags in a store, etc.) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., internet-based price information).
That the information is presented on a user interface having interactive elements or in response to receiving selection(s) of one or more interactive elements also serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., via the internet, as opposed to verbally or using pen and paper correspondence with the user).
As such, even though the claims do recite a variety of “additional” elements, all of these “additional” elements (whether considered alone or as an ordered combination) are recited at a high level of generality, and are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and further merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the variety of “additional” elements (whether considered alone or as an ordered combination) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they require a “particular machine or manufacture”.
Applicant specifically argues that
4) The claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than any purported abstract idea because the claims recite several additional limitations besides the asserted abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites… At least these particular elements ensure that the pending claims amount to significantly more than any abstract idea that the claims could be construed as being directed to… the additional elements in claim 1 provide significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the alleged abstract idea, particularly to address data processing in the electronic payment network and use the transaction pattern to trigger scraping of web elements in a non-conventional and non-generic way, even though the steps use some well-known components (a processor and a computing device). The pending claims reflect an improvement in the technology and, thus, recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 for this reason.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fourth argument.
The cited “additional” elements here ("dynamically generating, on a user interface of a user device, a plurality of interactive elements, each interactive element corresponding to the specific meta tag for each combination of listed items that match the common payment amount; receiving, from the user device, a selection of an interactive element corresponding to a first specific meta tag for a first combination of list items; and causing display, based on the selection and on the user device, a transaction summary for a card-based transaction comprising the item-level transaction information associated with the first combination of listed items”) are a practical implementation on so far as they serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., with computers using GUIs and via the internet, as opposed to verbally or using pen and paper correspondence with the user). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Applicant’s third argument, Applicant’s assertion that the claims address “data processing in electronic payment network” is not persuasive. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous for financial institutions to implement the claimed process for generating item-level transaction data because doing so can enable them to have more granular (e.g., item-level) transaction data associated with individuals which can provide those individuals with greater insight into their purchase history, can help support more helpful/personalized searches, and can help facilitate more personalized advertising (see, for example, paragraphs [0003]-[0006] and [0019] of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical subjective advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved way of generating item-level transaction data).
Furthermore, reciting a non-conventional and non-generic way to do something is not determinative of eligibility. Even if the claimed process has utility, utility is not the standard for eligibility. Nor is the novelty or non-obviousness of any of the steps/formulas determinative of eligibility. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, (1981 - the novelty of a process or its steps is not relevant to determining whether the claimed subject matter is patentable). Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 2020 - “[E]ven taking as true that claim 11 is ‘unique,’ that alone is insufficient to confer patent eligibility [when] the purported uniqueness of claim 11... is itself abstract.”’); Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2019 – “merely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim—even if the idea is novel and non-obvious—is not enough to save it from ineligibility’’). Even if the steps/formulas provide a useful business outcome, that is not enough for eligibility. See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v.. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019 - the automation of data synthesis technology and device drivers for different bedside machines did not render the claims any less abstract even if the automation resulted in “life altering consequences”); See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x at 638 (“[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.”); See In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023 - holding that the usefulness and tax benefits of the abstract idea were insufficient to confer patent eligibility on the claims).
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.
v Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, and 25 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 23 is/are drawn to devices (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 19, 20, and 24 is/are drawn to non-transitory media (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 13 and 19) recites/describes the following steps;
monitoring…a raw data stream associated with card-based transactions
detecting…based on the raw data stream, a transaction pattern in real time, wherein the transaction pattern indicates a number of transactions, that share a common payment amount, satisfying a threshold value, wherein the common payment amount is associated with an entity;
after detecting the transaction pattern…extract a plurality of…elements displayed
providing, as input to a…model, the plurality of…elements,
receiving, as output from the…model, a subset of…elements associated with price information for listed items…;
generating, based on the subset of…elements, a price list for the listed items;
generating, based on the price list, a generic meta tag for a plurality of combinations of listed items that match the common payment amount;
generating, based on the price list and the generic meta tag, a specific meta tag for each combination of listed items that match the common payment amount, wherein each combination indicates item-level transaction information corresponding to the common payment amount;
dynamically generating…a plurality of…elements, each…element corresponding to the specific meta tag for each combination of listed items that match the common payment amount;
receiving…a selection of an…element corresponding to a first specific meta tag for a first combination of list items; and
causing display, based on the selection…of a transaction summary for a card-based transaction comprising the item-level transaction information associated with the first combination of listed items
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a sequence of steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for analyzing transaction data and published merchant data to infer item-level transaction/product information and to generate and display additional item-level transaction data. Specifically, the process comprises detecting a number of transactions sharing a common payment amount from a received raw data stream associated with card-based transactions (and determining the number satisfies a threshold value, thereby detecting a “pattern” in the raw transaction data), extracting (i.e., determining/identifying) product-level information published by a merchant (e.g., text items, image items, textual descriptions of products and/or product names, listed prices, etc. - e.g., on a website of the merchant), determining price information for listed items from this information, generating prices for the listed items, generating generic meta tag (i.e., product type/category identifier) for combinations of listed items that match a common payment amount from the transaction data, generating a specific meta tag (i.e., product name) for each combination of listed items, and prompting the purchaser with the specific meta tags to confirm the specific products names (meta tag(s)) that were purchased in the initial transaction. This business process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, a marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) as it is a process for analyzing transaction data and merchant data to generate and display additional item-level transaction data. These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally and/or alternatively, the above-recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing each of these steps. For example, a human being is capable of examining (i.e., “monitoring”) a raw data stream associated with card-based transactions in real-time. It is noted that there is no requirement for the volume of this data to be unmanageably large, and it may be a very small amount of data. A human being is capable of examining detecting a transaction pattern in the data in real time (e.g., that a number of transactions that share a common payment amount satisfies a threshold value (i.e., an observation). It is noted that there is no requirement for the volume of this data to be unmanageably large, and it may be a very small amount of data or small number of transactions. A human being is capable of extracting or “scraping” (i.e., identify or determine) a plurality of displayed web elements from a viewed website (i.e., an observation regarding displayed pieces of information, such as elements displayed on a website of an entity); a human can receive (or be provided) an indication of the plurality published elements (e.g., text items, image items, textual descriptions of products and/or product names, listed prices, etc. – e.g., from a website). For example, a human can view the plurality web elements on a website, they can be told about the plurality web elements on a website, they can be shown a written description of the plurality web elements on a website, etc.. A human can provide a subset of web elements associated with price information for listed items on the website (e.g., a human can make one or more observation/judgment regarding the elements (e.g., the text items, image items, textual descriptions of products and/or product names and/or listed prices that they are viewing, that they are told about, etc.) as to which subset of elements (which textual descriptions of products and/or product names, listed prices, etc.) are associated with price information for listed items on the website). A human can determine based on the plurality of elements, a subset of elements associated with price information for listed items on the website (i.e., an observation/judgment regarding the elements); can generate, based on the subset of elements, a price list for the listed items (i.e., an observation/judgment); can generate, based on the price list, a generic meta tag for a plurality of combinations of listed items that match the common payment amount (i.e., an observation/judgment/opinion regarding combinations of listed items); can generate, based on the price list and the generic meta tag, a specific meta tag for each combination of listed items that match the common payment amount, wherein each combination indicates item-level transaction information corresponding to the common payment amount (i.e., an observation/judgment/opinion regarding combinations of listed items); can cause display of the specific meta tag for each combination of listed items that match the common payment amount (e.g., verbally and/ or using pen and paper); can receive a selection of a first specific meta tag corresponding to a first combination of list items (e.g., verbally and/ or using pen and paper); and can further display (e.g., to another person), based on the selection, the item-level transaction information associated with the first combination of listed items (i.e., an observation/judgment). These steps are all performable as mental processes.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 13 and 19 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“computer-implemented…by a computing device…by the computing device” (claim 1)
“a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to” (claim 13)
“one or more non-transitory media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising” (claim 19)
“monitoring…in an electronic payment network and from a plurality of user devices” (claims 1, 13, and 19)
“scraping a website…web elements displayed on the website… for listed items on the website…based on the plurality of web elements…a subset of web elements…” (claims 1, 13, and 19)
“to a machine learning model…from the machine learning model” (claims 1, 13, and 19)
“on a user interface of a user device…interactive elements…from the user device…selection of an interactive element…on the user device” (claims 1, 13, and 19)
“using the machine learning model” (claims 4 and 16)
“web elements” (claims 2 and 14)
“web elements…from the website” (claims 4, 10, 12, 16, and 24)
“using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21)
“using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23)
“a second machine learning model…as input to the second machine learning model…” (claims 11 and 20)
“by the computing device” (claim 25)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “computer-implemented…by a computing device” (claim 1) and/or using “a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to” (claim 13) and/or using “one or more non-transitory media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising” (claim 19) and/or “by the computing device” (claim 25) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0029] of the published disclosure which state “a computing device 200 that may be used with one or more of the computational systems is described. The computing device 200 may include a processor 203 for controlling overall operation of the computing device 200 and its associated components, including RAM 205, ROM 207, input/output device 209, communication interface 211, and/or memory 215….In some embodiments, computing device 200 may represent, be incorporated in, and/or include various devices such as a desktop computer, a computer server, a mobile device, such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, any other types of mobile computing devices, and the like, and/or any other type of data processing device…Processor 203 may include a single central processing unit (CPU), which may be a single-core or multicore processor, or may include multiple CPUs. Processor(s) 203 and associated components may allow the computing device 200 to execute a series of computer-readable instructions to perform some or all of the processes described herein.”, see also paragraph [0020] “Any of the devices and systems described herein may be implemented, in whole or in part, using one or more computing systems described with respect to FIG. 2.”, see also paragraph [0063] “One or more aspects discussed herein may be embodied in computer-usable or readable data and/or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices as described herein”). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of “scraping…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “to a machine learning model…from the machine learning model” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “using the machine learning model” (claims 4 and 16) and/or “a second machine learning model…as input to the second machine learning model…” (claims 11 and 20) and/or “using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21) and/or “using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23) provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The machine learning model and/or second machine learning model and/or natural language processing and/or object recognition and/or scraping is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model and/or second machine learning model and/or natural language processing and/or object recognition and/or scraping functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcomes of “determining…a subset of elements associated with price information” and “extract a plurality of elements displayed” and “determining…a sequence to access the subset of elements” and “parsing…the price information” and “parsing…the price information to identify a name…” and “determining…a transaction pattern…”, and do not include any details about how these functions are accomplished (e.g., using the machine learning model and/or second machine learning model and/or natural language processing and/or object recognition and/or scraping). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis.
The recited additional element(s) of “monitoring…in an electronic payment network and from a plurality of user devices” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “scraping a website…web elements displayed on the website… for listed items on the website…based on the plurality of web elements…a subset of web elements…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “on a user interface of a user device…interactive elements…from the user device…selection of an interactive element…on the user device” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “web elements” (claims 2 and 14) and/or “web elements…from the website” (claims 4, 10, 12, 16, and 24) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces (e.g., that have “interactive” elements). It also serves to limit the abstract idea to product/price information received from websites (e.g., as opposed to other sources of this information, which is explicitly envisioned as an alternative embodiment by Applicant’s disclosure). It also serves to limit the abstract idea to transaction data from a credit card payment network. This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recitation of “to a machine learning model…from the machine learning model” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “using the machine learning model” (claims 4 and 16) and/or “a second machine learning model…as input to the second machine learning model…” (claims 11 and 20) and/or “using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21) and/or “using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23) also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although these additional elements limit the identified judicial exceptions, these types of limitation merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning models used to make judgments, computers used to extract or recognize/classify information) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited additional element(s) of “using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21) and/or “using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23) and/or “scraping a website…web elements displayed on the website… for listed items on the website…based on the plurality of web elements…a subset of web elements…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, because such data gathering steps have long been held to be insignificant pre-solution activity, and because the manner of receiving the information is uninventive. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
The recited element(s) of “monitoring, by a computing device in an electronic payment network and from a plurality of user devices, a raw data stream associated with card-based transactions” (claims 1, 13, and 19), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, because such data gathering steps have long been held to be insignificant pre-solution activity, and because the manner of receiving the information is uninventive. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous for financial institutions to implement the claimed process for generating item-level transaction data because doing so can enable them to have more granular (e.g., item-level) transaction data associated with individuals which can provide those individuals with greater insight into their purchase history, can help support more helpful/personalized searches, and can help facilitate more personalized advertising (see, for example, paragraphs [0003]-[0006] and [0019] of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical subjective advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved way of generating item-level transaction data).
Dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 17 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 17 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 6 recites “further comprising: causing display of the generic meta tag for each combination of listed items that match the common payment amount”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 6. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “computer-implemented…by a computing device” (claim 1) and/or using “a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to” (claim 13) and/or using “one or more non-transitory media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising” (claim 19) and/or “by the computing device” (claim 25) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recitation of “to a machine learning model…from the machine learning model” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “using the machine learning model” (claims 4 and 16) and/or “a second machine learning model…as input to the second machine learning model…” (claims 11 and 20) and/or “using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21) and/or “using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23) and/or “scraping…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “monitoring…in an electronic payment network and from a plurality of user devices” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “scraping a website…web elements displayed on the website… for listed items on the website…based on the plurality of web elements…a subset of web elements…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “on a user interface of a user device…interactive elements…from the user device…selection of an interactive element…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “on a user interface of a user device…interactive elements…from the user device…selection of an interactive element…on the user device” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “web elements” (claims 2 and 14) and/or “web elements…from the website” (claims 4, 10, 12, 16, and 24) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “to a machine learning model…from the machine learning model” (claims 1, 13, and 19) and/or “using the machine learning model” (claims 4 and 16) and/or “a second machine learning model…as input to the second machine learning model…” (claims 11 and 20) and/or “using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21) and/or “using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23) and/or “scraping a website…web elements displayed on the website… for listed items on the website…based on the plurality of web elements…a subset of web elements…” (claims 1, 13, and 19) also serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “using natural language processing (NLP)” (claims 8 and 21) and/or “using image recognition” (claims 10 and 23) and/or “scraping a website…web elements displayed on the website… for listed items on the website…based on the plurality of web elements…a subset of web elements…” (claims 1, 13, and 19), and the recited element(s) of “monitoring, by a computing device in an electronic payment network and from a plurality of user devices, a raw data stream associated with card-based transactions” (claims 1, 13, and 19), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis; additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising and financial processing. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 17 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 17 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 13, and 19 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Unser et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0332414 A1 – hereinafter Unser), Siegel (US Patent Number 9,424,610 – hereinafter Siegel), Modi et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0132681 – hereinafter Modi), and Prakash et al. (US Patent Number 10,332,419 B2 - hereinafter Prakash).
Unser teaches analyzing transaction data to deduce item-level transaction data using machine-learning models, probability scores/values, price listings from merchants/advertisements, and statistical average purchase prices.
Siegel discloses analyzing transaction data to deduce highly granular line-item-level transaction data using predictive models, price listings extracted from merchants’ websites, and matching pre-tax transaction values to the extracted prices.
Modi discloses analyzing transaction data to deduce highly granular line-item-level transaction data for individual customers.
Prakash determining types or food products from transactions using assumed pricing and menu possibilities but does not specify metatags and potential total purchase details.
As per claims 1, 13, and 19, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the specific combination of steps/elements. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 23-25 depend upon claims 1, 13, or 19 and have all the limitations of claims 1, 13, or 19, and therefore similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621