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 .
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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to storing and provisioning an identifier, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 18) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing an identifier associated with payment data corresponding to a payment instrument of a customer for use in future transactions of the customer; and
based at least in part on a determination that one or more merchants, associated with a payment processing service, are associated with a same characteristic, provisioning, by the payment processing service, the identifier to be used by the one or more merchants such that the identifier is temporarily accessible to one or more merchant devices associated with the one or more merchants for enabling the one or more merchants to use the identifier to complete one or more transactions with the customer without requiring the customer to present the payment instrument in association with the one or more transactions.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more merchant devices,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “one or more merchant devices” language, “storing an identifier associated with payment data corresponding to a payment instrument of a customer for use in future transactions of the customer; and based at least in part on a determination that one or more merchants, associated with a payment processing service, are associated with a same characteristic, provisioning, by the payment processing service, the identifier to be used by the one or more merchants such that the identifier is temporarily accessible …associated with the one or more merchants for enabling the one or more merchants to use the identifier to complete one or more transactions with the customer without requiring the customer to present the payment instrument in association with the one or more transactions” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites three additional elements – “one or more merchant devices”, “one or more processors” (claims 13 and 18), “a RFID-enabled wristband” (claim 5) and “a point-of-sale (POS) device” (claim 10). The “one or more merchant devices”, “one or more processors”, “RFID-enabled wristband” and “point-of-sale (POS) device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more merchant devices”, “one or more processors” (claims 13 and 18), “a RFID-enabled wristband” (claim 5) and “a point-of-sale (POS) device” (claim 10) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “one or more merchant devices”, “one or more processors”, “RFID-enabled wristband” and “point-of-sale (POS) device” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights