DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on November 14, 2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on October 2, 2025 has been considered, but the NPL document (International Search Report in PCT/US2025/021326 mailed July 2, 2025) was not provided with the IDS and was not found in the PCT file. Therefore, this document has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that “even if Applicant’s claims relate to ‘authentication’ in some way, this in no way indicates that Applicant’s claims recite a judicial exception.” Remarks at 11. However, claim 1, for example, is a system for authorizing a card payment using passive authentication. As explained in the rejection, except for the two devices, this is an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts “that claim 1 improves the technical field of ‘transaction authorization.’” Remarks at 14. Applicant points to paragraphs 0003 and 0013 of the Specification as allegedly describing a technical problem and solution. Id. at 13-14. However, even if Applicant is improving the field of transaction authorization, this would be an improvement to the business process, i.e., abstract idea. Applicant has not shown that the technology being used has been improved.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, there is a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Contingent Limitations
Contingent limitations are generally not given patentable weight. For example, if a claim states that a step occurs if a condition is met, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require that the contingent step occurs because the condition may not be satisfied. System claims differ in that even if a condition that is required to perform a function is not met, the structure for performing the contingent limitation is given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II); see also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
The following limitations are contingent:
Claim 8: in response to determining that the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied, transmitting a transaction authorization indication to the point-of-sale device. (The claim does not require that it is determined that the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied.)
Intended Use
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
The following limitations include intended use limitations:
Claims 3, 10, and 17: transmit a request to a mobile application with which the user account is associated to detect presence of the at least one device within proximity of a user mobile device, wherein the mobile application detects presence using a Bluetooth or near-field communication (NFC) interface of the user mobile device.
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-7, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 8-14, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 15-20, which recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-7 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
receive a request to authorize a card payment from a point-of-sale device, wherein the request is associated with an attempted card payment;
determine a user account associated with the request to authorize the card payment;
identify at least one passive authentication factor linked to the user account, the at least one passive authentication factor associated with at least one device associated with the user account, and the at least one passive authentication factor being user-specified and comprising a specified range;
determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied based upon an analysis of the at least one device; and
in response to determining that the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied, transmit a transaction authorization indication to the point-of-sale device.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one device associated with the user account comprises a mobile device, wearable device, or a tracking device.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the machine-readable instructions determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied based upon an analysis of the at least one device by causing the computing device to at least:
transmit a request to a mobile application with which the user account is associated to detect presence of the at least one device within proximity of a user mobile device, wherein the mobile application detects presence using a Bluetooth or near-field communication (NFC) interface of the user mobile device.
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the machine-readable instructions determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied based upon an analysis of the at least one device by causing the computing device to at least:
obtain biometric data from the at least one device; and
determine that the biometric data is within an acceptable range.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device to identify at least one passive authentication factor linked to the user account when at least one aspect of the card payment requires at least a secondary authentication.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the at least one aspect of the card payment comprises a payment amount, a geographic location associated with the at least one device, or a type of goods or services associated with the card payment.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device to determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied without a user interaction.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to authentication and transaction authorization. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it involves processing of payments and a commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process of receiving a request, determining a user account, identifying at least one passive authentication factor, determining, and transmitting. Additionally, the point of sale, at least one device, mobile application, Bluetooth, and NFC are existing technology that are being used to implement the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakshi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0364716 A1 and Bermudez et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,664,842 B2.
Claim 1:
Bakshi teaches:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: (see at least Bakshi, Figure 1, item 103 (Authorization Entity)).
receive a request to authorize a card payment from a point-of-sale device, wherein the request is associated with an attempted card payment (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0021 (“In operation, card user 101 initiates a credit or debit card transaction 121 at POS merchant 102 by presenting a credit or debit card. POS merchant 102 then submits an authorization request 122 to an authorization entity 103, such as the issuing entity or bank of the credit or debit card. … To that end, authorization request 122 includes location information for POS merchant 102 in addition to credit or debit card transaction information that is normally sent to authorization entity 103, such as the name of card user 101 and an account number associated with the debit or credit card.”)).
determine a user account associated with the request to authorize the card payment (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0021 (“To that end, authorization request 122 includes location information for POS merchant 102 in addition to credit or debit card transaction information that is normally sent to authorization entity 103, such as the name of card user 101 and an account number associated with the debit or credit card.”)).
identify at least one passive authentication factor linked to the user account, the at least one passive authentication factor associated with at least one device associated with the user account, (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0022 (“In some embodiments, when authorization entity 103 receives authorization request 122, authorization entity 103 first determines whether a two-factor authentication process should be implemented, where the authentication process includes verification that card user 101 is located within the maximum allowable radius of the location of POS merchant 102.”); paragraph 0023 (“Furthermore, in some embodiments, location verification request 123 includes a maximum allowable radius from the location of POS merchant 102, within which mobile subscriber terminal 110 (and presumably card user 101) must be located.”)).
determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied based upon an analysis of the at least one device (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0024 (“Location verification entity 104, upon receiving location verification request 123, determines whether mobile subscriber terminal 110 (and, presumably, card user 101) is located within a maximum allowable radius of POS merchant 102. As noted above, in some embodiments, location verification entity 104 may determine the above-described maximum allowable radius. For example, location verification entity 104 may determine the maximum allowable radius based on one or more of the identity of card user 101 or authorization entity 103, the specific credit or debit card being used in credit or debit card transaction 121, the location of POS merchant 102, etc. Alternatively, authorization entity 103 may provide this maximum allowable radius to location verification entity 104. In either case, location verification entity 104 then determines whether mobile subscriber terminal 110 is located within the maximum allowable radius of POS merchant 102 by transmitting location query 124 to location confirmation application 105 and subsequently receiving location response 125 from location confirmation application 105.”); paragraph 0028 (“Upon receipt of location response 125 from location confirmation application 105, location verification entity 104 transmits location verification 126 to authorization entity 103.”)).
in response to determining that the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied, transmit a transaction authorization indication to the point-of-sale device (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0028 (“When location verification 126 includes the “YES” indicator, authorization entity 103 transmits authorization request 122, since mobile subscriber terminal 110, which presumably has the same location as card user 101, is located at POS merchant 102. Since the current location of card user 101 is within the maximum allowable radius of the physical location of POS merchant 102, it may be assumed that an unauthorized user is not fraudulently using the credit card for transaction 121. Of course, authorization entity 103 may then further base the authorization of authorization request 122 on other parameters, such as credit limit. Authorization entity 103 then transmits transaction authorization 127 to the credit card console located at POS merchant 102. POS merchant 102 then completes credit or debit card transaction 121”)).
Bakshi does not explicitly teach, but Bermudez, however, does teach:
and the at least one passive authentication factor being user-specified and comprising a specified range (see at least Bermudez, column 4, lines 57-62 (“In some embodiments, a customer may operate wearable user device 102. User device 102 can include one or more of a wearable device such as a smart ring, a smart watch, a smart bracelet, smart glasses, smart clothing (e.g., a jacket or short having at least some of the electronics and/or operability discussed herein), or the like.”); column 8, lines 61-67 (“In some embodiments, program(s) may be configured to determine, based on the recorded biometric data, a range of biometric data representative of the user being in a stressed state. In some embodiments, program(s) 236 may be configured to determine based on the recorded biometric data, a range of biometric data representative of the user being in a calm state.”); column 8, lines 37-49 (“In certain embodiments, program(s) 236 may be configured to provide a request (e.g., audibly or via a display associated with wearable user device 102) for a user to provide baseline biometric data. In some embodiments, program(s) 236 may be configured to receive an indication from the user to begin recording biometric data that can be used as baseline biometric data. In some embodiments, program(s) 236 may request a certain type of baseline biometric data (e.g., calm or stressed), and in some embodiments, program(s) 236 may be configured to receive an indication from the user as to whether the biometric data being recorded is representative of the user being in a calm state or in a stressed state.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bermudez’s passive biometrics authentication with Bakshi’s transaction authentication based on a determined location of a mobile terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of determining whether the user’s sensed biometric information falls within a range for a calm or stressed state in order to determine whether there may be fraud or other criminal activity that should prevent the transaction from being authorized.
Claim 2:
Bakshi further teaches:
wherein the at least one device associated with the user account comprises a mobile device, wearable device, or a tracking device (see at least Bakshi, Figure 1, item 110 (Mobile Subscriber Terminal) and associated text).
Claim 5:
Bakshi further teaches:
identify at least one passive authentication factor linked to the user account when at least one aspect of the card payment requires at least a secondary authentication (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0022 (“In some embodiments, when authorization entity 103 receives authorization request 122, authorization entity 103 first determines whether a two-factor authentication process should be implemented, where the authentication process includes verification that card user 101 is located within the maximum allowable radius of the location of POS merchant 102. Such two-factor authentication may be implemented when authorization request 122 is recognized to fall outside the normal pattern of use for the credit or debit card used for credit or debit card transaction 121. For example, POS merchant 102 may be located outside a normal geographical region of use associated with the credit or debit card (e.g., city, country, etc.). Similarly, two-factor authentication may be beneficially implemented by authorization entity 103 when credit or debit card transaction 121 at POS merchant 102 exceeds a predetermined dollar amount, a predetermined frequency of use, and the like. In other embodiments, authorization entity 103 may require two-factor authentication as described herein for all transactions using a particular credit or debit card.”)).
Claim 6:
Bakshi further teaches:
wherein the at least one aspect of the card payment comprises a payment amount, a geographic location associated with the at least one device, or a type of goods or services associated with the card payment (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0022 (“Similarly, two-factor authentication may be beneficially implemented by authorization entity 103 when credit or debit card transaction 121 at POS merchant 102 exceeds a predetermined dollar amount, a predetermined frequency of use, and the like.”)).
Claim 7:
Bakshi further teaches:
determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied without a user interaction (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0025 (“Location query 124 includes the location of POS merchant 102 (for example, global positioning system coordinates and/or latitude-longitude coordinates) and, in some embodiments, the maximum allowable radius (for example in feet, meters, kilometers, etc.). By contrast, location response 125, which is received from location confirmation application 105, includes no geographical location information associated with mobile subscriber terminal 110 and instead includes the equivalent of either a yes or no response. In this way, two-factor authentication based on the current location of card user 101 can be used to authenticate credit or debit card transaction 121 with an automated procedure, even though card user 101 has not consented to continuously share geographical/location information with third parties (such as authorization entity 103 and location verification entity 104).”)).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakshi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0364716 A1; Bermudez et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,664,842 B2; and Baker et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,860,988 B1.
Claim 3:
Bakshi does not explicitly teach:
determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied based upon an analysis of the at least one device by causing the computing device to at least: transmit a request to a mobile application with which the user account is associated.
Bakshi, however, teaches:
The Location Verification Entity 104, and not the Authorization Entity 103, transmits a request to a mobile application with which the user account is associated (see at least Bakshi, paragraph 0018 (“Location response 125 is typically generated in response to a query (e.g., location query 124) from a location verification entity associated with the debit or credit card (e.g., location verification entity 104), and indicates whether or not the mobile subscriber terminal is within a specified maximum allowable radius of a specific location included in the query, i.e., the location of the user activity.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature with Bakshi’s transaction authentication based on a determined location of a mobile terminal. Per the claim, the system, which is taught by Bakshi’s authorization entity, transmits a request to a mobile application. In Bakshi, the location verification entity and not the authorization entity, transmits such a request. Although a different entity in Bakshi transmits this request, the location verification entity of Bakshi is taking this action on behalf of the authorization entity. Instead of doing the location verification itself, Bakshi’s authorization entity outsources this verification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Bakshi to have the authorization entity perform the verification because it would provide the same results, would not have any effect on the card user, merchant, or authorization entity, and would be efficient.
Bakshi does not explicitly teach, but Baker, however, does teach:
to detect presence of the at least one device within proximity of a user mobile device, wherein the mobile application detects presence using a Bluetooth or near-field communication (NFC) interface of the user mobile device (see at least Baker, column 4, lines 46-51 (“Upon placing smart ring 102 on the finger of user 302, smart ring 102 may communicate with another device as part of one-time authentication interaction 300. In this embodiment, smart ring 102 is authenticated using mobile device 202 as part of one-time authentication interaction 300.”); column 5, lines 30-39 (“In this embodiment, authentication process 400 begins with an operation 402, where a wearable smart ring device (e.g., smart ring 102) is worn by a user (e.g., user 302). If the wearable smart ring device and the user’s mobile device have already been paired, as described above, then upon initiation of operation 402, the smart ring and the mobile device may communicate with each other to establish a connection. For example, via Bluetooth sensor 112 of smart ring 102 and communication module 212 of mobile device 202.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Baker’s method of detecting another device with Bakshi’s transaction authentication based on a determined location of a mobile terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of determining that the devices are near each other in order to reduce the likelihood of fraud.
Claim 4:
Bakshi does not explicitly teach, but Baker, however, does teach:
determine whether the at least one passive authentication factor is satisfied based upon an analysis of the at least one device by causing the computing device to at least: obtain biometric data from the at least one device; and determine that the biometric data is within an acceptable range (see at least Baker, column 3, lines 35-46 (“In some embodiments, smart ring 102 may also include components configured to detect or capture information associated with unique biological traits of a user to identify, verify, and authenticate the user wearing smart ring 102. In an example embodiment, smart ring 102 includes a biometric sensor 120 that is configured to obtain biometric information associated with a user wearing smart ring 102. For example, biometric sensor 120 may be a fingerprint sensor, a pulse rate sensor, a vein sensor, or other type of sensor that is configured to measure or sense biometric information associated with a user wearing smart ring 102 to verify the identity of the user.”); column 5, lines 45-55 (“Next, authentication process 400 includes an operation 404. At operation 404, a biometric reading is detected. For example, as described above, smart ring 102 may include biometric sensor 120 that performs a biometric reading upon placing smart ring 102 onto a finger of user 302. Operation 404 may include comparing the biometric reading to saved or stored biometric information associated with the user (e.g., user 302). In various embodiments, the stored or saved biometric information may be stored or saved on the smart ring (e.g., smart ring 102), on the mobile device (e.g., mobile device 202), or both.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Baker’s biometric authentication with Bakshi’s transaction authentication based on a determined location of a mobile terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of using a secure method of authenticating a user that is convenient for the user by not requiring the user to take actions such as inputting a code or an answer to a security question. This type of biometric authentication reduces the likelihood of fraud.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Other Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Kliper et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0270097 A1. This reference teaches a system for passive authentication of remote user transactions.
Asefi et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,030,603 B1. This reference teaches authenticating and authorizing a payment at a point of sale device.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)