DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received November 20, 2025. No Claim(s) have been canceled. Claims 1, 4, 11 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18,607,184 Filing date or 371(c) date: 03/15/2024
Applicant Name/Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Inventor(s): Urich, Shelli; Strader, Matthew
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the amended limitations “determining…a list of accounts ….by performing a look-up using a …identifier from the user profile”, “receiving…an image of an identifier corresponding to a product that has an associated loan…”, “extracting…characters…”, “determining…one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the product”. Applicant points to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) with respect to mental processes arguing the human mind is not capable of “determining a list of accounts linked to a profile of the user by performing a lookup using a user identifier from the user profile”, “receiving an image of an identifier…”, “extracting characters from the image”, “determining one or more account of the list of accounts …to perform …allowable actions on the product the image captured by a camera of the mobile device” or “initiating …a request to a server, the request comprising the identifier, information corresponding to the list of accounts…”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the limitation “determining a list of accounts linked to a profile by performing lookup using user identifier…”, the human mind is capable of analyzing data researched in order to determine a list of accounts linked to a profile”. The specification discloses the “look-up” process as looking in an accessible data store/memory using an account identifier to determine linked accounts associated with or to the identifier (para 0043, para 0063). This is little different than the basic idea of organizing a library of information going to the relevant portion of the library and picking a book (see Cogent Med., Inc. v. Elsevier Inc., No: 5:13-cv-04479-RMW (N.D. Cal.). The human mind is capable of determining a relevant portion of a library and “looking” up information linked to an identifier. The limitations “receiving an image of an identifier…” and “extracting characters from the image” mimics mental processes of the human mind looking at an image and reading the content (characters) from the image. The human mind is capable of “determining one or more account of the list of accounts …to perform …allowable actions on the product the image captured by a camera of the mobile device” which is no more that analyzing data in order to decide what actions are allowable. The human mind is capable of “initiating… (making a decision perform) a request”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that under step 2A prong 2, pointing to MPEP 2106.04 (II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the claimed subject matter recites additional elements that are indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argues the limitations include improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology and using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology. Applicant argues the system operating to perform the operations “determining …a set of allowable actions to be taken by the user”, “initiating …a request …comprising identifier and information” and “displaying …information” provide features that allow for an ability to “initiate a loan payoff and pay remaining balance of the loan” (spec ¶ 0033). Applicant argues the limitations provide a technical solution in a manner expediting delivery of data to a user so that loan can be paid off in a more efficient time frame (spec ¶ 0037). This provides technical benefit in that the providing an identifier coupled with accounts linked to the profile of a user uploading the identifier narrow the amount of data that is looked through to retrieve the product. Therefore, the limitations reduces computing processing and times because the identifying linked accounts reduces an amount of data searched. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applying technology to implement an abstract idea is not a technical solution to a problem rooted in technology. Instead it is explicitly merely “linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology”. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the MPEP (MPEP 2106.04(d), MPEP 2106.05(h)). The operations performed by a “resource of a mobile device” which include “authenticating…a user”, “determining…a set of allowable actions”, “determining a list of accounts linked to a the profile of the user…”, “receiving…an image”, “extracting …characters”, “determining…one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users to perform …actions on the product”, “initiating …a request…”, “receiving…data”, “displaying…information” are operations not directed toward improving the resource of the mobile device or the mobile device itself, but instead merely operations to perform the abstract idea by “applying” the “resource”. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the causing of building equipment to perform one or more actions to implement at least one of recommendation is an additional element which provides a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Actions to implement at least one of recommendations are abstract as recommendations are not related to technology or a technical improvement. Furthermore, applicant is arguing limitations not claimed. The claimed limitations are silent with respect to actions to implement recommendations. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the use of a computer is not recited at a high level as “causing …pieces of equipment to cease or reduce operations” or “reduce amount of airflow to the portion of the building” or to increase or decrease temperature of the portion of the building” provides actions to implement recommendations. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant is arguing limitations not claimed. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the limitations “determining …one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform allowable actions on the product” integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the resource only determines specific users to perform the actions rather than any user. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. According to MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h), indications of patent eligibility where the additional elements when considered as a whole integrate the exception into a practical application. .
an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
an improvement to another technology or technical field;
an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine;
a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or
other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant has not explained how “determining …one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform allowable actions on the product” is a process to improve computer functions, improve technology, use of a particular machine, transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the “resource of a mobile device” for use in implementing the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant states that under step 2B, the claimed limitations provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The examiner notes that applicant does not provide any rebuttal arguments or evidence to support the statement. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fails to teach “receiving, by the resource, an image of an identifier corresponding to a product that has an associated loan, the image captured by a camera of the mobile device”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hammad teaches FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717; para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and par 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source. The prior art teaches displaying an image of identifiers captured by the camera of the product and teaches displaying and selecting a credit card for funding or selecting a bill to add a product to for billing on a due date. A credit card payment is the borrowing of a sum of money that is expected to be paid back. A line of credit can be provided as a lump sum that is paid back over time. The specification discloses a loan as a balance due against a product with loan terms and interest. (Para 0007). Accordingly based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. A credit card applied in a transaction for payment of a product can be interpreted as a loan, as a credit payment is a balance due associated with a loan against a product with loan terms, interest and accrued interest. Therefore, the prior art Hammad teaches the limitation “receiving, by the resource, an image of an identifier corresponding to a product that has an associated loan, the image captured by a camera of the mobile device”.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach “a balance due associated with a loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest and an interest rate”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing claim 4 limitations and not claim 1. Although Hammad does not explicitly provide details of loan terms of the loan associated with a product, the prior art does teach associating via the selection of a credit card for payment of balance due against a product. Credit card are explicitly a type of loan against the balance due of a product with loan terms that include interest, interest terms and condition and repayment requirements. When considered in combination with Vintila in at least para 0317-0320, where Vintila teaches commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of accounts with reduced interest which can be configured to be paid down on a monthly or other period or occasional basis (see para 0319). The examiner maintains the rejection. .
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach “a product that has an associated loan”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above with respect to argument 1. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claim(s) 1-10:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 5 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps (1) authenticating a user (2) determining a set of allowable actions (3) determining a list of accounts (4) receiving an image (5) extracting characters (6) determining one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform …actions on the product (7) initiating a request (8) receiving data (9) displaying information The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic resource of a mobile device. The claimed physical structures (resource of a mobile device) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps (1) authenticating, (2) and (3) determining, (6) initiating mimic mental concept of analysis and decision; while the steps of (4) and (7) receiving; (5) extracting which mimics mental processes of observation. Accordingly, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and decision, and whereas the displaying is mere communication of result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The specification titled “Data Capture and Loan Payoff through Smartphone” discloses in the background that conventionally, a person paying off a loan may do so by submitting a payment via an online banking portal and that the systems, methods and devices are for initiating a loan payoff (¶ 0002-0003). The specification discloses that user allowable action include receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments (¶ 0005, 0009)
Therefore, in light of the specification and the corresponding language of the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process where a user is authenticated for accessing the resource (“any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application
installed on the user device” [¶ 0039] ) of the mobile device and then determining allowable action of the user and the list of accounts of the user where in response to receiving an identifier receiving data in response to a request and outputting the data corresponding to a process with a set of permittable allowable actions (e.g. receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments). Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales and commercial activities/interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “resource of a mobile device” and “resource form the server”. The specification discloses the “resource” to be an “application” (para 0032) or “may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile banking application for a financial institution” (para 0039)
The claimed “resource of a mobile device” to perform the operations “receiving…an image”, “extracting …characters” and “displaying…information” and the “resource from the server” to perform the operation “receiving …data”. These operations which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)
The claim limitations (receiving, extracting and displaying) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “resource of a mobile device” applied to perform the operations “authenticating”, “determining…a set of allowable actions”, “determining…a list of accounts”, “determining …one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform…actions”, “initiating…a request”, where the operations are not directed toward technology but rather a transaction and commercial activity.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “resource” of a mobile device. The functions of the resource of the mobile device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the functions of the resource of the mobile device performs the operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-7 are directed toward authenticating the user to access an application on a mobile device which is applied for initiating a financial activity request based on the determined allowable actions of the user, determined list of accounts of the user and the received user identifier that is extracted and determining list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform actions on the product– which is a process directed toward risk mitigation and a financial activity. The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-9 is directed toward receiving data responsive to request of limitations 1-7 and outputting information corresponding to the product and user permitted actions in the financial activity. Accordingly as a whole, the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of displaying information related to data corresponding to a product which includes allowable actions of the user to perform which is a process directed toward a financial activity.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “resource”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The additional elements recited in the claim are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements include a “resource” of a mobile device. The specification discloses the “resource 140 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile banking application for a financial institution.“ (¶ 0039).
Taking the claim limitations separately, the function performed by the “resource” at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a mobile device “resource” as described in the specification and claim limitations “authenticating”, “determining”, “receiving”, “extracting”, “initiating …request” and “displaying”----are some of the most basic functions of such commerce applications. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic computer (mobile device) to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware or corresponding software as recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers... .
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “authenticating”, “determining”, “receiving”, “extracting”, “initiating …request” and “displaying”----... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of authenticating, determining, receiving, extracting, initiating, receiving and displaying is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
Specification:
[0038] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 100 for initiating a quick loan payoff, according to an
example embodiment. The system 100 may include a user device 110. The user device 110 may
be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be handled
or used by an end user. In some embodiments, the user device 110 may be a mobile phone and/or
a smartphone.
[0039] The user device 110 may include a resource 140. The resource 140 may be or include
any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application
installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile
banking application for a financial institution. A user can use their user credentials to access the
resource 140. The resource 140 can authenticate the user based on the user credentials. In some
embodiments, a server 160 hosting the resource 140 executing on (or provisioned to) the user
device 110 authenticates the user credentials. For example, the resource 140 may be configured
to receive log-in credentials of the user, and transmit the log-in credentials of the user to the
server 160. An account manager 130 of the server 160 (described in greater detail below) may
be configured to access a user profile corresponding to the log-in credentials, and determine whether the log-in credentials received from the resource 140 match the log-in credentials of the
user profile. In some embodiments, the server 160 may use multi-factor authentication to
authenticate the user to access the resource 140. Such multi-factor authentication may include,
for example, push notifications, biometric authentication, username and password combinations,
and so forth.
[0040] In various embodiments, the resource 140 may include, execute on, or otherwise be
provisioned by a server 160. The server 160 may be or include any device, component, element,
or hardware designed or configured to enable an interaction between a user of the device 110 and
data of the resource 140. In some embodiments, the server 160 may provide functionality and
communication capabilities for the resource 140. For example, the resource 140 may be hosted
on, executed on, and/or provisioned by the server 160 to the device 110.
[0041] In various embodiments, the server 160 and/or user devices 110 may include
respective processor circuits(s) 120. The processing circuit(s) 120 may be or include any device,
component, element, or hardware designed or configured to execute actions or processes. For
example, the processing circuit(s) 120 may be configured to execute, support, provision, or
otherwise provide the resource 140. In some embodiments, the processing circuit(s) 120 may
include one or more processor(s) 122 and memory 124. The processor(s) 122 may be or include
a field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a logic
circuit, etc. The memory 124 may include random access memory (RAM), flash memory, read
only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable
programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CDROM,
or any device capable for storing data. The memory 124 may be embodied as a nontransitory
computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor 122 to
perform various functions of the device 110 / remote server 160 disclosed herein. In some
embodiments, the memory 124 and the processor 122 are integrated as a single component. The
processing engine(s) 126 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware
designed or configured to perform certain dedicated functions of the processing circuit 120, the server 160, and/or the user device 110. For example, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a
10 permission engine 128, an account manager 130, a data capture engine 132, and a graphical user
interface engine 134. The processing engine(s) 126 may enable the functions of the permission
engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user
interface engine 134. The permission engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user interface engine 134 are described in greater detail herein.
[0042] In various embodiments, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a permission
engine 128. The permission engine 128 may or be or include any device, component, element, or
hardware designed or configured to determine a set of allowable actions the user can take within
the resource 140….
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-10 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward the allowable actions of a user in a financial activity. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward describing the identifier as an identifier of any of a plurality of commercial or financial identifiers – a financial activity and non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward limiting information to financial account elements- financial activity. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward receiving a selection of allowable actions and performing an action according to a selection- a financial activity. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward executing a payment- a financial activity. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward staging a payment – a financial activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward limiting the identifier to a PO number or billing of lading and initiating a dispute- a financial activity. Dependent 9 is directed toward determining a first count of products corresponding to PO, receiving second count of received products and transmitting data- a financial/transaction activity. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward receiving a notification- insignificant extra solution activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-10 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 11-19:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a server, as in independent Claim 11 and the dependent claims. Such servers fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Server claim 11 recites operational functions (1) receive a user log (2) transmit authentication (3) retrieve information (4) transmit information (5) receive characters (6) transmits one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform actions on the product (7) receive a request (8) transmit data. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic server comprising processors. The claimed physical structures are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the operations (1) receive (3) retrieve, (5) receive (7) receive mimic mental concept of observation; while the operations of (2) transmit, (4) transmit (6) transmit and (8) transmit is mere communication of results/data. Accordingly, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, and whereas the transmit limitations are mere communication of data/result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The specification titled “Data Capture and Loan Payoff through Smartphone” discloses in the background that conventionally, a person paying off a loan may do so by submitting a payment via an online banking portal and that the systems, methods and devices are for initiating a loan payoff (¶ 0002-0003). The specification discloses that user allowable action include receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments (¶ 0005, 0009)
Therefore, in light of the specification and the corresponding language of the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process where user is authenticated in a log in process, and user financial and access information is retrieved and transmitted. In response to receiving user identifier and request related to accounts, transmitting product data which is a financial/transaction activity. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales and commercial activities/interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a server comprising one or more processors.
The additional element “one or more processors” applied to perform the operations “receive…user log”, “transmit…authentication”, “retrieve information…performing lookup using …identifier”, “transmit…information”, “receive…characters”, “transmit…one or more accounts of the list”, “receive a request”, “transmit…data”, such operations (receive, transmit, retrieve) have been found insufficient. According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim limitations (receive, transmit, retrieve) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include one or more “processors” of a server. The functions of the one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the functions of the processor performs the operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the operations of the one or more processors at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-7 are directed toward authentication a user via a log on process and transmitting user information and product identifiers for receiving a request comprising the identifier and a list of account linked to the user- which is a financial/transaction activity. The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8 when considered as a whole, the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of authenticating user and using data received in response to request transmitting product data a process directed toward a financial activity.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The “one or more processor” claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The operations are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional elements only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “one or more processors”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The additional elements recited in the claim are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements include a “one or more processors” of a server.
Taking the claim limitations separately, the function performed by the “one or more processors” at each operations of the process is purely conventional. Using “one or more processors” as described in the specification and claim limitations “receive”, “retrieve” and “transmit”----are some of the most basic functions of server processors. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic one or more processors of a server to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware or corresponding software as recited by the server claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the operations of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers... .
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receive”, “retrieve” and “transmit”----... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of authenticating, determining, receiving, extracting, initiating, receiving and displaying is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i) –
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
MPEP 2106.05(g)
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Mere data gathering:
iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Specification:
[0038] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 100 for initiating a quick loan payoff, according to an
example embodiment. The system 100 may include a user device 110. The user device 110 may
be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be handled
or used by an end user. In some embodiments, the user device 110 may be a mobile phone and/or
a smartphone.
[0041] In various embodiments, the server 160 and/or user devices 110 may include
respective processor circuits(s) 120. The processing circuit(s) 120 may be or include any device,
component, element, or hardware designed or configured to execute actions or processes. For
example, the processing circuit(s) 120 may be configured to execute, support, provision, or
otherwise provide the resource 140. In some embodiments, the processing circuit(s) 120 may
include one or more processor(s) 122 and memory 124. The processor(s) 122 may be or include
a field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a logic
circuit, etc. The memory 124 may include random access memory (RAM), flash memory, read
only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable
programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CDROM,
or any device capable for storing data. The memory 124 may be embodied as a nontransitory
computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor 122 to
perform various functions of the device 110 / remote server 160 disclosed herein. In some
embodiments, the memory 124 and the processor 122 are integrated as a single component. The
processing engine(s) 126 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware
designed or configured to perform certain dedicated functions of the processing circuit 120, the server 160, and/or the user device 110. For example, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a
10 permission engine 128, an account manager 130, a data capture engine 132, and a graphical user
interface engine 134. The processing engine(s) 126 may enable the functions of the permission
engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user
interface engine 134. The permission engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user interface engine 134 are described in greater detail herein.
[0042] In various embodiments, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a permission
engine 128. The permission engine 128 may or be or include any device, component, element, or
hardware designed or configured to determine a set of allowable actions the user can take within
the resource 140….
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 12-19 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 11. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward the allowable actions of a user in a financial activity. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward describing the identifier as an identifier of any of a plurality of commercial or financial identifiers – a financial activity and non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward limiting information to financial account elements- financial activity. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward receive a selection of allowable actions and perform an action according to a selection- a financial activity. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward initiating transfer of funds- a financial activity. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward staging a payment – a financial activity. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward limiting the identifier to a PO number or billing of lading and initiating a dispute- a financial activity. Dependent 19 is directed toward determining a first count of products corresponding to PO, receiving second count of received products and transmitting data- a financial/transaction activity. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward receiving a notification- insignificant extra solution activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 12-19 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a device, as in independent Claim 20. Such devices fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Device claim 20 recites a device operations (1) authenticate a user (2) determine a set of allowable actions (3) determine a list of accounts (4) extract characters (6) determine one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile (7) initiate a request (8) receive data (9) display information The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic resource of a mobile device. The claimed physical structures (one or more processors of the device) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps (1) authenticate, (2) and (3) determine, (5) determine (6) initiate mimic mental concept of analysis and decision; while the steps of (7) receive; (4) extract which mimics mental processes of observation. Accordingly, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and decision, and whereas the display is mere communication of result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The specification titled “Data Capture and Loan Payoff through Smartphone” discloses in the background that conventionally, a person paying off a loan may do so by submitting a payment via an online banking portal and that the systems, methods and devices are for initiating a loan payoff (¶ 0002-0003). The specification discloses that user allowable action include receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments (¶ 0005, 0009)
Therefore, in light of the specification and the corresponding language of the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process where a user is authenticated for accessing the device and then determining allowable action of the user and the list of accounts of the user where in response to receiving an identifier receiving data in response to a request and outputting the data corresponding to a process with a set of permittable allowable actions (e.g. receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments). Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales and commercial activities/interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The operations of device claim 20 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “one or more processor” of a device. The functions of the one or more processors of the device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the functions of the one or more processors of the device performs the operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the operations at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-4 are directed toward authenticating the user to access an application on a mobile device which is applied for initiating a financial activity request based on the determined allowable actions of the user, determined list of accounts of the user and the received user identifier that is extracted – which is a process directed toward risk mitigation and a financial activity. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-8 is directed toward receiving data responsive to request of limitations 1-4 and outputting information corresponding to the product and user permitted actions in the financial activity. Accordingly as a whole, the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of operations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of displaying information related to data corresponding to a product which includes allowable actions of the user to perform which is a process directed toward a financial activity.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified.
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “one or more processors”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The additional elements recited in the claim are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements include a device comprising one or more processors.
Taking the claim limitations separately, the function performed by the “one or more processors” at each operation of the process is purely conventional. Using a “one or more processors” of a device as described in the specification and claim limitations “authenticate”, “determine”, “extract”, “initiate …request” and “display”----are some of the most basic functions of such commerce applications. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic computer (mobile device) to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware or corresponding software as recited by the device claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the device to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. .
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “authenticate”, “determine”, “extract”, “initiate …request” and “display”----... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each operations does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of authenticate, determine, extract, initiate, receive and displaying is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
Specification:
[0038] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 100 for initiating a quick loan payoff, according to an
example embodiment. The system 100 may include a user device 110. The user device 110 may
be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be handled
or used by an end user. In some embodiments, the user device 110 may be a mobile phone and/or
a smartphone.
[0039] The user device 110 may include a resource 140. The resource 140 may be or include
any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application
installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile
banking application for a financial institution. A user can use their user credentials to access the
resource 140. The resource 140 can authenticate the user based on the user credentials. In some
embodiments, a server 160 hosting the resource 140 executing on (or provisioned to) the user
device 110 authenticates the user credentials. For example, the resource 140 may be configured
to receive log-in credentials of the user, and transmit the log-in credentials of the user to the
server 160. An account manager 130 of the server 160 (described in greater detail below) may
be configured to access a user profile corresponding to the log-in credentials, and determine whether the log-in credentials received from the resource 140 match the log-in credentials of the
user profile. In some embodiments, the server 160 may use multi-factor authentication to
authenticate the user to access the resource 140. Such multi-factor authentication may include,
for example, push notifications, biometric authentication, username and password combinations,
and so forth.
[0040] In various embodiments, the resource 140 may include, execute on, or otherwise be
provisioned by a server 160. The server 160 may be or include any device, component, element,
or hardware designed or configured to enable an interaction between a user of the device 110 and
data of the resource 140. In some embodiments, the server 160 may provide functionality and
communication capabilities for the resource 140. For example, the resource 140 may be hosted
on, executed on, and/or provisioned by the server 160 to the device 110.
[0041] In various embodiments, the server 160 and/or user devices 110 may include
respective processor circuits(s) 120. The processing circuit(s) 120 may be or include any device,
component, element, or hardware designed or configured to execute actions or processes. For
example, the processing circuit(s) 120 may be configured to execute, support, provision, or
otherwise provide the resource 140. In some embodiments, the processing circuit(s) 120 may
include one or more processor(s) 122 and memory 124. The processor(s) 122 may be or include
a field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a logic
circuit, etc. The memory 124 may include random access memory (RAM), flash memory, read
only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable
programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CDROM,
or any device capable for storing data. The memory 124 may be embodied as a nontransitory
computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor 122 to
perform various functions of the device 110 / remote server 160 disclosed herein. In some
embodiments, the memory 124 and the processor 122 are integrated as a single component. The
processing engine(s) 126 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware
designed or configured to perform certain dedicated functions of the processing circuit 120, the server 160, and/or the user device 110. For example, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a
10 permission engine 128, an account manager 130, a data capture engine 132, and a graphical user
interface engine 134. The processing engine(s) 126 may enable the functions of the permission
engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user
interface engine 134. The permission engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user interface engine 134 are described in greater detail herein.
[0042] In various embodiments, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a permission
engine 128. The permission engine 128 may or be or include any device, component, element, or
hardware designed or configured to determine a set of allowable actions the user can take within
the resource 140….
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2013/082190 A1 by Hammad et al (Hammad),
In reference to Claim 1:
Hammad teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((Hammad) in at least para 0004), comprising:
authenticating, by a resource of a mobile device, a user for accessing the resource based on user credentials of the user ((Hammad) in at least para 0136);
determining, by the resource, according to a profile of the user, a set of allowable actions to be taken by the user ((Hammad) in at least para 0051-0053, para 0056-0057, para 0076, para 0079-0083, para 0093, para 0115, para 0119-0121 wherein the prior art teaches a sanction check list for actions including allow, deny, challenge, device lockout, update allow/deny, card lockout allow/deny, purchase allow/deny, disable wallet allow/deny, para 0116, para 0135, para 0238);
determining, by the resource, a list of accounts linked to the profile of the user by performing a look-up using user identifier from the user profile ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0235-0238, para 0245, para 0258 wherein the prior art teaches adding funding source associated with name and address of user; para 0260 wherein the prior art teaches user may activate interface to view/modify user name, user pin, user address, user social security number; para 0299 wherein the prior art teaches databased include several tables including users table including fields userID, ssn, dob, first and last name, para 0301);
receiving, by the resource, an image of an identifier corresponding to a product that has an associated loan, the image captured by a camera of the mobile device ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717; para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source),
extracting, by the resource, characters from the image which correspond to the identifier ((Hammad) in at least para 0253);
determining, by the resource, one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the product ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0035-0036, para 0042-0044, para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054, para 0135, para 0196-0197, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0235-0238, para 0245, para 0296)
initiating, by the resource, a request to a server, the request comprising i) the identifier and ii) information corresponding to the list of accounts linked to the profile ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 9 ref # 911 to 912 to 903a; FIG. 12A; FIG. 17A-B; para 0091, para 0133-0135, para 0187, para 0235-0238, para 0251-0254);
receiving, by the resource from the server, responsive to the request, data corresponding to the product, that has an associated loan ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 12A; FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717; para 0137, para 0188-0189, para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source,); and
displaying, by the resource, information relating to the data from the server which corresponds to the product that has an associated loan, including the set of allowable actions permitted to be performed ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 9 ref # 917 to 902 to 918; FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717, FIG. 17A-B, FIG. 19B-D; para 0135-0136, para 0187, para 0191, para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account, para 0207, para 0217, para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill, para 0251-0253, para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source)
In reference to Claim 2:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the set of allowable actions comprise
at least one of receiving information relating to products, initiating a dispute, staging payments, or executing payments. ((Hammad) in at least para 0115, para 0123, para 0231, para 0247-0253)
In reference to Claim 3:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the identifier comprises
at least one of a vehicle identification number, a serial number, an inventory number, a purchase order number, or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading.((Hammad) in at least para 0135, para 0187, para 0190, para 0250, para 0253)
In reference to Claim 5:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
receiving, by the resource, a selection of an action from the set of allowable action ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0200, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0235-0236); and
performing, by the resource, the action according to the selection. ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0231-0236)
In reference to Claim 6:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the action comprises
executing payment, wherein performing the action comprises initiating, by the resource, a transfer of funds from a first account, according to a payment amount indicated in the data corresponding to the product. ((Hammad) in at least para 0218-0220, para 0235-0237),
In reference to Claim 7:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the action comprises
staging payment, wherein performing the action comprises adding the identifier to a queue for executing payment for the product by a second user. ((Hammad) in at least para 0235-0237, para 0256 wherein the prior art teaches user adding offer code and finding merchants who accept offer code),
In reference to Claim 10:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), further comprising:
receiving, by the resource, responsive to receiving the selection and performing the action, a notification indicating completion of the action ((Hammad) in at least para 0014, para 0018, para 0115, para 0135, para 0189).
In reference to Claim 11:
Hammad teaches:
(Currently Amended) A server ((Hammad) in at least para 0046-0047, para 0133) comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive, from of a resource of a mobile device, a user log in attempt via user credentials of the user ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 2E-2F; para 0136);
transmit an authentication of the user log in attempt to the resource ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 2F; para 0104-0109, para 0136);
retrieve information corresponding to a user profile of the user by performing a look-up using a user identifier from the user profile, wherein the information corresponding to the user profile of the user is at least one of a set of allowable actions to be taken by the user, or a list of accounts linked to the profile of the user ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 7 ref # 703-704, FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0051-0053, para 0056-0057, para 0076, para 0079-0083, para 0093, para 0099-0109, para 0115, para 0119-0121 wherein the prior art teaches a sanction check list for actions including allow, deny, challenge, device lockout, update allow/deny, card lockout allow/deny, purchase allow/deny, disable wallet allow/deny, para 0116, para 0135, para 0238, para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and par 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source);
transmit the information corresponding to the user profile of the user to the resource of the mobile device ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 8-9; para 0161 , para 0175, para 0188, para 0228-0230, para 0244);
receive, from the resource, characters that correspond to an identifier of a product, that has an associate loan ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0035-0036, para 0042-0044, para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054, para 0135, para 0196-0197, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0235-0238, para 0245, para 0250-0253);
transmit, to the resource, one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the product ((Hammad) in at least para 0063 wherein updates on accounts, para 0065 wherein send adding cards to wallet);
receive a request from the resource, the request comprising i) the identifier and ii) information corresponding to the list of accounts linked to the profile ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 9 ref # 911 to 912 to 903a; FIG. 12A; FIG. 17A-B; para 0091, para 0133-0135, para 0187, para 0235-0238, para 0251-0254); and
transmit, to the resource, responsive to the request, data corresponding to the product that has an associated loan. ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 9 ref # 917 to 902 to 918; FIG. 17A-B, FIG. 19B-D; para 0135-0136, para 0187, para 0191, transmit, to the resource, one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the product; para 0207, para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0217, para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0253, wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source)
In reference to Claim 12:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
wherein the set of allowable actions comprise at least one of receiving information relating to products, initiating a dispute, staging payments, or executing payments. ((Hammad) in at least para 0096-0097, para 0115, para 0123, para 0231, para 0247-0253)
In reference to Claim 13:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
wherein the identifier comprises at least one of a vehicle identification number, a serial number, an inventory number, a purchase order number, or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading. .((Hammad) in at least para 0135, para 0187, para 0190, para 0250, para 0253)
In reference to Claim 15:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), further configured to:
receive, from the resource, a selection of an action from the set of allowable action ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0200, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0235-0236);; and
perform, by the server, the action according to the selection. ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0231-0236)
In reference to Claim 16:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above),
wherein the action comprises executing payment, wherein performing the action comprises initiating, by the server, a transfer of funds from a first account, according to a payment amount indicated in the data corresponding to the product. ((Hammad) in at least para 0218-0220, para 0235-0237),
In reference to Claim 17:
Hammad teaches
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above),
wherein the action comprises staging payment, wherein performing the action comprises adding the identifier to a queue for executing payment for the product by a second user. ((Hammad) in at least para 0235-0237, para 0256 wherein the prior art teaches user adding offer code and finding merchants who accept offer code),
In reference to Claim 19:
Hammad teaches
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), further configured to:
transmit, to the resource, by the server, responsive to receiving the selection and performing the action, a notification indicating completion of the action. ((Hammad) in at least para 0014, para 0018, para 0115, para 0135, para 0189).
In reference to Claim 20:
Hammad teaches:
Device Claim 20 functional processes correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 20 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include a device comprising one or more processors configured to execute a resource ((Hammad) in at least para 0271), the resource analogous to the resource of claim 1 configured to perform the operations that correspond to claim 1:
Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 of claim 1 above and Claim 14 of claim 11 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/082190 A1 by Hammad et al (Hammad), and further in view of CA 3007992 A1 by Vintila et al (Vintila)
In reference to Claim 4:
Hammad teaches:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the information includes
Hammad suggest but does not explicitly teach:
a balance due associated with the loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate.
Vintila teaches:
a balance due associated with the loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate.((Vintila) in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320)
According to KSR, common sense rationale, when the prior art provides some teaching, suggestion or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed invention. Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying for payment of a product credit payment selections. The specification discloses a balance due associated with a loan against a product, with loan terms of the loan, accrued interest and interest rate. Hammad teaches a loan/credit product which includes a credit for a balance due against a product. Although Hammad does not explicitly provide the details of the use of credit card with loan terms, accrued interest or interest rates such terms and conditions in credit card payment accounts is in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the details of billing of accounts for amounts due and applying credit from credit accounts as payment against amounts do would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, according to KSR common sense rationale, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. The prior art reference Hammad differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of one credit/loan applied against a balance due on a product with another including the details of the terms of the credit/loan applied. The prior art Vintila provides evidence that the substitution of term “credit” for payment with the term “loan” are functions known in the art. The prior art Vintila further teaches that such financing includes details of the repayments for the balance due. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substation would have been predictable
Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying a mobile commerce app for performing transactions with multiple payment options including credit for different transaction provided in the mobile app (resource). Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transactions options of a payment app of Hammad to include options for micro-loans as taught by Vintila since Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods
In reference to Claim 14:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data corresponding to the product includes a balance due associated with a loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate.
Vintila teaches:
wherein the data corresponding to the product includes a balance due associated with a loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate. .((Vintila) in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320)
Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying a mobile commerce app for performing transactions with multiple options for different transaction provided in the mobile app (resource). Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more payment methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transactions options of a payment app of Hammad to include options for micro-loans as taught by Vintila since Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more payment methods
Claim(s) 8-9 of claim 5 above, Claim(s) 18 of claim 15 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/082190 A1 by Hammad et al (Hammad), and further in view of US Patent No. 8,958,605 B1 by Amtrup et al. (Amtrup)
In reference to Claim 8:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the identifier comprises …
wherein the action comprises initiating a dispute corresponding to the purchase order. ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0252)
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order, and ((Hammad) in at least para 0260)
Amtrup teaches:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 4 lines 57-Col 5 lines 1-56, col 6 lines 11-26) , and
Both Hammad and Amtrup recognize transaction which apply purchase orders and teach capturing using OCR technology invoice data for use in disputes. Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured for initiating disputes of Hammad to include purchase order numbers as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Hammad and Amtrup discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Amtrup further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9:
(Original) The method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein performing the action comprises:
determining, by the resource, a first count of products …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B;
receiving, by the resource, a second count of received products …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B); and
transmitting, by the resource, to a device, data to initiate to the dispute, the data comprising the first count, the second count, and the identifier((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0250-0252).
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
determining, by the resource, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order;
receiving, by the resource, a second count of received products; and
Amtrup teaches:
determining, by the resource, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 6 lines 3-26) ;
receiving, by the resource, a second count of received products ((Amtrup) in at least Col 8 lines 5-10, lines 42-55, Col 11 lines 59-Col 12 lines 1-7); and
Both Hammad and Amtrup teach capturing invoice data and teach that purchase orders can be part of the invoice process. Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured and use of such invoices for initiating disputes of Hammad to include the validation of invoices to goods as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order.
In reference to Claim 18:
Hammad teaches
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the identifier comprises
at least one of a…order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the … order, and wherein the action comprises initiating a dispute corresponding to the …order((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0252); and
wherein performing the action comprises:
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the …order …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B);
receiving, by the server, a second count of received products …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B); and
transmitting, to the resource, by the server, data to initiate to the dispute, the data comprising the first count, the second count, and the identifier ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0250-0252).
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order, …
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order;
receiving, by the server, a second count of received products; and
Amtrup teaches:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 4 lines 57-Col 5 lines 1-56, col 6 lines 11-26)
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 6 lines 3-26);
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 8 lines 5-10, lines 42-55, Col 11 lines 59-Col 12 lines 1-7);
Both Hammad and Amtrup recognize transaction which apply purchase orders and teach capturing using OCR technology invoice data for use in disputes. Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured for initiating disputes of Hammad to include purchase order numbers as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice
Both Hammad and Amtrup teach capturing invoice data and teach that purchase orders can be part of the invoice process. Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured and use of such invoices for initiating disputes of Hammad to include the validation of invoices to goods as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub No. 2025/0238833 A1 by Kempton; CA 3141753 A1 by Jones et al; GB 2597581 A Akila et al; US Pub No. 2021/0049683 A1 by Jones et al; US Pub No. 2020/0082460 A1 by Patidar et; US Patent No. 9,916,010 B2 Harris et al
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695