DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 9/4/2025, Applicant, on 12/1/2025, amended Claims 1, 11, and 19, and cancelled Claims 6, 8, 15-16, and 20. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-19 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant recites the amended limitations of the claims, states the claims are sufficient to amount to significantly more, and then states the recent Memorandum and that the amended claims do not recite a judicial exception. Examiner disagrees as this is a general assertion of eligibility under 101, and Applicant does not state why there is no judicial exception or why the claims are significantly more. The claims recite two abstract ideas as per the rejection below, which are not practically integrated nor significantly more as they are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at selecting a category for reward percentages and reminding a user that they can change this percentage at any time. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as the system, input device, processor, storage device, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they merely are collecting, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as a processor and storage device, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – Applicant asserts that the combination of Vichich and CCR does not teach the amended limitations of the claims, particularly the selection of a category for purchases which are matched to calculate an amount of spending for the purchases to be returned to the user and that the user can match all the percentages with at least one of the spending categories and periodically change any of the matches. Examiner disagrees as Vichich teaches the classes are different categories of the purchases where there are transaction vehicles/cards with different transactions having different rewards or cash back as in [0043], when all of the portions have been selected and have at least one of the classes matched thereto, storing in the storage device the data base representing the classes that are matched with each of the portions as in [0083] where everything is stored in database, which would store the assigned choices of [0081] above, the data base being used by the bank to calculate a cash back amount based upon purchases made using the payment card during a predetermined period as in [0061] a cash back amount is calculated by the system during a period using information in the database such as purchases, and Vichich also teaches the portions are different percentages for different cards to be issued by banks as in [0100-101] where cards are issued with different cash backs, as well as having different categories as in [0048] where different merchant industry categories are used), and these are classes to be applied to purchases made with a payment card being issued or previously issued by the bank and the classes are different categories of the purchases where the transaction vehicles/cards with different transactions having different rewards or cash back as in [0043]. CCR teaches that each of these cash back percentages are applied to purchases made by the user with a payment card issued by or to be issued by the bank as on p.2, that each of the classes represents a different category as in p.2, and CCR teaches being able to change your 3% category at any time as on p.2 which is a constant reminder on a website. This, in combination, teaches the amended limitations of the claims
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the combination of Vichich and CCR teaches the amended limitations of the Claims, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 103.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite limitations to display a list of the portions, each of the portions representing a different cash back percentage to be applied to purchases made by a user with a payment card issued by or to be issued by the bank (Transmitting Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. portioning amounts for purchases; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), respond to a selection from the input device of each of the portions in the portions list by displaying on the display screen a list of the classes, each of the classes representing a different category of the purchases (Receiving and Analyzing Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. portioning amounts for purchases; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), respond to a selection from the input device of one of the classes in the classes list by matching the selected one class to the selected portion (Receiving and Analyzing Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. portioning amounts for purchases; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), when all of the portions have been selected and have at least one of the classes matched thereto, storing in the storage device the data base representing the classes that are matched with each of the portions, the data base being used to calculate a cash back amount based upon purchases made using the payment card during a predetermined period (Storing the Analyzed Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. portioning amounts for purchases; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity – Examiner notes “the database being used to calculate…” is intended use), and after a predetermined elapsed time since the matching was completed sending reminder to the user of the payment card that the matches in the data base can be changed or remain as stored (Analyzing and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. portioning amounts for purchases; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, database, input device having a display screen, processor, storage device operated by a bank, and application with code, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information in order to portion amounts. For example, responding to a selection of each of the portions displayed encompasses any person looking at a paper and selecting an option on a piece paper, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgement. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, database, input device having a display screen, processor, storage device, and application with code above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0031] FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 and environment thereof, according to at least one embodiment, by which a user 110 benefits through use of services and products of an enterprise system 200. The user 110 accesses services and products by use of one or more user devices, illustrated in separate examples as a computing device 104 and a mobile device 106, which may be, as non-limiting examples, a smart phone, a portable digital assistant (PDA), a pager, a mobile television, a gaming device, a laptop computer, a camera, a video recorder, an audio/video player, radio, a GPS device, or any combination of the aforementioned, or other portable device with processing and communication capabilities. In the illustrated example, the mobile device 106 is illustrated in FIG. 1 as having exemplary elements, the below descriptions of which apply as well to the computing device 104, which can be, as non-limiting examples, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or other user-accessible computing device.”
Which states that any computing system, such as a smart phone, gaming device, laptop, etc., can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies such as a computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims. For the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, input device, etc., nor the receiving, storing, or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, 12-14, and 17-18 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vichich (U.S. Publication No. 2013/031,1266) in view of CCR (NPL - How to maximize your Bank of America Customized Cash Rewards credit card written 22 JULY 2022).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 19, Vichich, a system and method for personalized rewards and loyalty programs, teaches a system for creating a data base of classes matched with portions ([0083] database is used to store information on the system), the system comprising:
an input device having a display screen ([0096] display used to show personalized rewards to a consumer, which is on an interface/screen);
a processor and a storage device operated by a bank and operatively coupled with the input device; and an application stored in the storage device and including executable code that, when executed causes the processor ([0097] storage memory connected to processors to run program and [0100-101] system and application is for a process of an issuer issuing a card) to:
respond to a selection from the input device of each of the portions in the portions list by displaying on the display screen a list of the classes ([Fig. 10 and [0044] the user selects on the display device the best transaction vehicle, as well as in [0081] the best yield percentage for a category which is a portion of a class);
respond to a selection from the input device of one of the classes in the classes list by matching the selected one class to the selected portion ([Fig. 10 and [0044] the user selects on the display device the best transaction vehicle, as well as matching in [0081] the best yield percentage for a category which is a portion of a class);
the classes are different categories of the purchases (transaction vehicles/cards with different transactions having different rewards or cash back as in [0043]),
when all of the portions have been selected and have at least one of the classes matched thereto, storing in the storage device the data base representing the classes that are matched with each of the portions ([0083] everything is stored in database, which would store the assigned choices of [0081] above), the data base being used by the bank to calculate a cash back amount based upon purchases made using the payment card during a predetermined period ([0061] a cash back amount is calculated by the system during a period using information in the database such as purchases)
Vichich also teaches wherein the storage device is included in a computing system that is in communication with the input device ([0068-69] memory is in communication with devices as shown in Fig. 7),
wherein the computing system is a computing system of a bank ([0040] bank of America cash card tied to a bank system), and
Vichich also teaches the portions are different percentages for different cards to be issued by banks ([0100-101] where cards are issued with different cash backs) as well as having different categories ([0048] where different merchant industry categories are used), and these are classes to be applied to purchases made with a payment card being issued or previously issued by the bank and the classes are different categories of the purchases (transaction vehicles/cards with different transactions having different rewards or cash back as in [0043]).
Although Vichich teaches to display on the display screen a list of the choices for reward cashbacks in percentages (Fig. 10 shows percentages for cards to display percentages as in [0040] which are portions as in Applicant’s specification), and Vichich teaches changing the value of the fields as in [0105] and [0109] and notification of information regarding the card as in [0081], it doesn’t explicitly show these are categories with percentages for each category, nor reminding a user that they can change this any time.
CCR, a piece Non-Patent Literature discussing how to maximize your Bank of America Customized Cash Rewards credit card, teaches categories to choose/select for earning cashback as on pgs. 1 and 2, and further shows this is in a chart as on p. 2.
CCR also teaches that each of these cash back percentages are applied to purchases made by the user with a payment card issued by or to be issued by the bank as on p.2,
that each of the classes represents a different category as in p.2, and
CCR teaches being able to change your 3% category at any time as on p.2 which is a constant reminder on a website.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary school at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rewards system using percentages and categories of Vichich with the categories and percentages of CCR as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in the area of customer rewards and loyalty, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would create an improved customer rewards system which would enable consumers to more easily and readily identify options that best suit there need and thus increasing customer loyalty as taught in [0006-0007] of Vichich.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Vichich teaches wherein the processor is included in the input device ([0035] user device can be a phone, PDA, tablet, etc).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Vichich teaches wherein the input device is one of a computing device, a mobile device and an agent device ([0035] user device can be a phone, PDA, tablet, etc).
Regarding Claim 4, Vichich teaches wherein the processor is included in a computing system that is in communication with the input device ([0103] consumer mobile device is in communication with [0136] computing device).
Regarding Claim 7, Vichich teaches wherein the executable code of the application is adapted to be executed during a process of issuing a bank payment card ([0100-101] system and application is for a process of an issuer issuing a card).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Vichich teaches wherein the executable code of the application is further adapted to be executed at predetermined intervals after the bank payment card is issued whereby the stored matches of the classes with the portions can be changed and stored ([0098-99] a time period during which the issued card and percentages as in Claim 1 above is valid is used).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Vichich teaches wherein each of the portions can be matched with: only one of the classes; at least two of the classes; or all of the classes not matched with all other ones of the portions ([0050] the transactions a rewards categories are matched with transaction yields which are the portions).
Regarding Claim 14, Vichichteaches including at a predetermined time interval after the data base is stored (Stored as in Claim 1 above and intervals and time periods are used as in Claim 9 above),
generating a reminder message to the input device indicating on the display screen that matches of the classes with the portions can be changed ([0047] information is sent hen there are real-time changes to the rewards or cash back such as in [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130311266 A1
Vichich; Michael et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO PERSONALIZE REWARDS AND LOYALTY PROGRAMS
US 20130110709 A1
Hodge; Andrew et al.
METHOD OF SETTING PAYMENT OPTION PREFERENCES
US 20200202330 A1
NOVIS; Austen
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTI-USE ACCOUNT SYSTEM
US 20200074449 A1
NOVIS; Austen
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTI-USE ACCOUNT SYSTEM
US 20180082321 A1
Boccardi; Fabrizio et al.
INTELLIGENT SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PAYMENT, FINANCE, AND SOCIAL COMMERCE
US 20160350792 A1
RAJAPPA; Arun et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIMULATING REWARD OPPORTUNITIES
US 20160180386 A1
Konig; Francis
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLOUD BASED PAYMENT INTELLIGENCE
US 20160086222 A1
Kurapati; Kaushal
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO REMIND USERS OF TARGETED OFFERS IN SIMILAR CATEGORIES
US 20160071140 A1
Sherman; Corinne Elizabeth
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING LOYALTY REWARD PROGRAMS
US 20150220999 A1
Thornton; John Michael et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO DYNAMICALLY ADJUST OFFER SPEND THRESHOLDS AND PERSONALIZE OFFER CRITERIA SPECIFIC TO INDIVIDUAL USERS
US 20140330713 A1
Isaacson; Thomas M. et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
US 20130124319 A1
Hodge; Andrew et al.
PAYMENT OPTIONS BASED ON LOCATION
US 20250265551 A1
Raghavan; Sriram
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RETRAINING AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENGINE
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 12/29/2025