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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits on 1/15/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claims filed 3/25/2026 have been entered.
Claims 2-22 are pending.
Claims 6, 10, 17, and 22 are independent.
Claims 2, 5-10, 14-17, and 22 are currently amended.
Claims 3-4, 11-13, and 18-21 are original.
Claim 1 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding representative claims 6 and 10, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the current subject matter eligibility framework. More specifically, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite subject matter falling under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; and that the claims are directed to initiating electronic transactions rather than organizing human activity.
The argument is not persuasive. The claim limitations delineated in the rejection set forth or describe redirection of and initiation of transactions, which is a fundamental economic practice and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims also fall within the subgrouping of “commercial or legal interactions”, as initiating transactions is a form of sales activities or behaviors. Claims which recite commercial or legal interactions also fall within the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Applicant further argues that the claims include additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2. More specifically, Applicant argues that that the claimed scanning, detecting, redirecting, and initiating steps cannot be performed in the human mind and are not mental processes.
The argument is not persuasive. With regards to Step 2A Prong 1, the rejection does not identify the “Mental Processes” grouping and instead identifies the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Here, the abstract idea involves redirecting to different transaction fulfillment systems. The claimed additional elements amount to using generic computer technology as an implementation tool. The claim recites functional limitations (scanning, detecting, redirecting, initiating) without specifying any particular technical mechanism for performing them. Merely requiring a computer at a high generic level to perform abstract transaction routing functions does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1, nor does it provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Applicant further argues that the claimed operations integrate the claims into a practical application because they provide a specific manner of initiating electronic transactions and that the claims improve computer functionality and computing efficiency.
The argument is not persuasive. The claim does not recite a specific technological solution or implementation. Instead, it broadly recites determining a transaction, selecting an identifier, redirecting a browser, and initiating a transaction. These elements are both claimed at a high level of generality and described in the specification in a manner which does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claims contain no limitations directed to improving computer performance, network efficiency, memory usage, processing speed, or any other technology. A claimed business process that is performed generically on a computer more quickly than manually does not constitute an improvement to computer functionality. Here, Applicant’s argued benefits are not reflected in the claim language or supported in the specification.
Applicant further argues that browser redirection cannot be performed mentally. More specifically, Applicant argues that redirecting a browser to a second network address is not practically performable in the human mind and therefore is not a mental process.
The argument is not persuasive. With regards to Step 2A Prong 1, the rejection does not identify the “Mental Processes” grouping and instead identifies the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The abstract idea involves redirecting to different transaction fulfillment systems. Here, the additional element of using a browser to perform the redirect is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Applicant further argues that the claims contain an inventive concept under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework. More specifically, Applicant argues that the scanning, detecting, redirecting, comparing, and initiating limitations provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The argument is not persuasive. The findings from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over to Step 2B. As previously discussed, the identified limitations are recited at a high level of generality, are result-oriented, and lack the technical detail to convey an improvement to one of ordinary skill the art. This type of generic computer implementation of the abstract functions does provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant further argues that the claimed features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional because the cited art does not disclose them.
The argument is not persuasive. Novelty and eligibility are distinct inquiries. Even assuming the cited prior art does not disclose particular limitations, a claim can still be directed to an abstract idea. The absence of prior art does not itself establish that the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original).
Applicant argues that the combination of scanning, determining protocols, detecting requests, redirecting, and initiating transactions constitutes an unconventional sequence that solves a technical problem.
The argument is not persuasive. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The ordered combination merely describes a sequence of transaction routing decisions implemented by generic computing technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims are rooted in computer technology and solve a computer-specific problem.
The argument is not persuasive. The problem identified by Applicant is a transaction routing management problem rather than a technological problem with computer operation. The claims do not provide improvement to browser, network, database, or computer technology. Instead, it uses existing computer technology as an implementation tool for the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to DDR Holdings and Diehr.
The argument is not persuasive. Dierh is largely inapplicable because it involved a technological process that improved industrial rubber curing. The argument with regards to DDR Holdings is unpersuasive because the claims at issue were directed to a specific technological solution that altered the conventional operation of Internet interactions. In contrast, the additional elements of representative claims 1 and 10 are recited at a high level of generality and result-oriented. As discussed above, the specification lacks the technical detail to convey an improvement to one of ordinary skill the art. Here, generic computer implementation of the abstract idea does provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the claim should be found eligible in view of cases such as Enfish and McRO.
The argument is not persuasive. Unlike Enfish or McRO, the claim does not recite a specific improvement to data structures, computer architecture, animation techniques, or another technological mechanism. The focus of the claim is on determining which transaction fulfillment system should process a transaction and routing the transaction accordingly. Here, the argued improvement falls within the abstract realm rather than computer technology. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant’s argues that Chidambaram Asokan (US 2021/0201298A1) fails to suggest or disclose redirecting a computer system based on a detected first network address to which an electronic transaction request was directed, as claimed in claim 6; and that the redirections disclosed by Chidambaram Asokan are not based on a first network address at which a transaction request is detected as claimed but are an incidental part of a payment processing process for transactions already initiated.
The argument is not persuasive. Subject to broadest reasonable interpretation, the reference discloses redirecting a computer system based on a detected first network address to which an electronic transaction request was directed. The reference discloses that the user navigates to a checkout page/interface, requests use of funds from an external digital wallet, and the transaction processor interfaces with the external wallet provider using shared identifiers and API integrations. The user request to access or use the external wallet funds constitutes an electronic transaction request made via the checkout webpage, which corresponds to the claimed first network address. The subsequent navigation/redirect to the wallet-provider or service-provider interface corresponds to redirecting to a second network address based on the transaction request and associated wallet-provider information. Applicant’s argument relies on a narrow reading of the claim. Here, the claim does not require that the first network address be an address independent of the checkout page.
Applicant further argues that Chidambaram Asokan fails to suggest or disclose "initiating, via the second network address through which the first network address is accessed, a first electronic transaction with a particular transaction fulfillment system of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems based on the particular identifier to fulfill the electronic transaction request," as claimed in claim 6; that the reference discloses redirecting a buyer to a checkout flow after "an order is created" (para 0043, Fig. 2, step 3) and redirecting to a merchant site from a checkout flow "to a payment approval" (para 0047, Fig. 2, step 16); that the reference does not disclose an initiation of a transaction via a second network address through which a first network address is accessed to which an electronic transaction request was directed with a particular transaction fulfillment system, as claimed in claim 6; and that Chidambaram Asokan's "checkout flow 1008" is an integral part of a prior-initiated transaction. See Chidambaram Asokan paras 0043, 0044, 0046, and 0047.
The argument is not persuasive. The argument that the reference’s redirection occurs only after a transaction has already been initiated is not persuasive because the claim does not preclude such timing. The claim only requires determining at least one electronic transaction before the detecting and redirecting steps. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the redirection may occur during an ongoing checkout process after transaction data has already been generated. The reference discloses that a user generates transaction data with a merchant, navigates to a checkout page, requests use of external wallet funds, and is routed through a service provider and external wallet integration to complete the payment. This corresponds to the claimed redirecting step because it routes the browser from the first checkout page to a second network address associated with the selected wallet for completing the transaction. Here, the claimed “first electronic transaction” is reasonably interpreted to be the wallet-funded fulfillment transaction.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Taheri (US 2025/0117836 A1) fail to suggest or disclose the comparing of embeddings; that Taheri discloses "the processor communicates with the LLM 522, providing the product identifier and requesting an analysis based on the credit card documents" (para 0068) without reference to the generating and the comparing of embeddings in the manner claimed in claim 10; that while an LLM may inherently create embedding vectors which are fed into transformer layers in performing determinations, the particular subject matter of claim 10 including "determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations," "calculating a plurality of embeddings respectively based on the plurality of text instances," "calculating another embedding based on the electronic transaction request," "comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances," and then "applying a model to the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction to determine a particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers" is not suggested or disclosed by the combined references; and that by first comparing the embeddings to determine the particular text instance and then applying the model to determine an identifier as claimed in claim 10, the model can operate more efficiently, which results in expedient determination of the identifier using minimal systems resources.
The argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely merely on the fact that an LLM may internally generate embeddings within transformer layers. Taheri expressly discloses storing vectorized training data, chatbot responses, and content in a vector database, converting a user query into vector form, and comparing the vectorized query to the vector database to identify the closest matching vectorized response (see para. 0026). Here, Taheri teaches calculating embeddings for stored text instances, calculating another embedding for a user request, and comparing the request embedding to the stored embeddings to identify content.
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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2-22 are directed to a system, method, or non-transitory product, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 6 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 10, system claim 17, and product claim 22. Claim 6 recites the limitations of:
6. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a plurality of identifiers respectively corresponding to a plurality of transaction fulfillment systems;
enabling by the computer system a browser;
scanning a plurality of network locations to determine a plurality of transaction protocols respectively corresponding to the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems;
determining at least one electronic transaction between a user and at least one of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on at least one of the plurality of identifiers;
detecting by the computer system an electronic transaction request via the browser via a first network address;
determining a particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the at least one electronic transaction;
redirecting the computer system via the browser to a second network address based on the first network address, the plurality of transaction protocols, and the at least one electronic transaction; and
initiating, via the second network address through which the first network address is accessed, a first electronic transaction with a particular transaction fulfillment system of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems based on the particular identifier to fulfill the electronic transaction request.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite both a fundamental economic practice and commercial interaction, as they set forth or describe redirecting and initiating transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer system, browser, network addresses, and electronic transactions in claim 6 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10, 17 and 22 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 6: computer system; browser; network addresses; electronic transactions;
Claim 10: computer system; calculating and comparing embeddings; applying a model
Claim 17: computer system; electronic transactions; one or more processors; memory
Claim 22: computer system; electronic transactions; non-transitory computer-readable medium; one or more processors
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, i.e. electronic transactions. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 6, 10, 17, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0056-0059] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 6, 10, 17, and 22 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-16 and 18-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 21 recite limitations drawn to determining a source of a transaction measuring wireless signals. These limitations, in view of the specification para. [0046], broadly cover determining geographic location of a mobile device. This additional element is described at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 10-14 and 18-20 recite limitations drawn to applying one or more models to determine the particular identifier. The models are used to generally apply the abstract idea and also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 2-22 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 2-9, 15-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taveau (US 2015/0348006 A1) in view of Hudson (US 2017/0186027 A1), further in view of Chidambaram Asokan (US 2021/0201298 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 17, and 22, Taveau discloses a method and corresponding computer system/non-transitory medium (see para. 0097-0099) comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a plurality of identifiers respectively corresponding to a plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0010, 0025-0027);
determining at least one electronic transaction between a user and at least one of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on at least one of the plurality of identifiers (see para. 0025-0027);
detecting by the computer system an electronic transaction request (see para. 0025-0027);
determining a particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the at least one electronic transaction (see para. 0034-0040); and
initiating a first electronic transaction with a particular transaction fulfillment system of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems based on the particular identifier to fulfill the electronic transaction request (see para. 0034-0040).
Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Hudson teaches scanning a plurality of network locations to determine a plurality of transaction protocols respectively corresponding to the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0016-0018, 0038, wherein transaction protocols broadly encompass benefits in view of para. 0024 of Applicant’s specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and product of Taveau to include the feature taught by Hudson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to help shoppers find and receive the best price available (see Hudson, para. 0002).
Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Chidambaram Asokan teaches: enabling by the computer system a browser; detecting by the computer system the electronic transaction request via the browser via a first network address; redirecting the computer system via the browser to a second network address based on the first network address, the plurality of transaction protocols, and the at least one electronic transaction; and initiating the first electronic transaction via the second network address (see para. 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taveau to include the features of Chidambaram Asokan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to support payment with external wallets (see Chidambaram Asokan, para. 0046).
Regarding claim 2, Taveau discloses: determining by the computer system a source of the electronic transaction request; and determining the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers further based on the source of the electronic transaction request (see para. 0034-0040).
Regarding claim 3, Taveau discloses: measuring wireless signals by the computer system; and determining the source of the electronic transaction request based on the measuring of the wireless signals (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 4, Taveau discloses: determining by the computer system a geographic location based on the wireless signals; and determining the source of the electronic transaction request based on the geographic location (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Hudson teaches enabling by the computer system a browser; detecting by the computer system the electronic transaction request via the browser via a first network address; and wherein initiating the first electronic transaction comprises filling by the computer system the particular identifier into fields of a webpage via the browser (see para. 0080).
Regarding claim 7, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches: receiving from the user via the computer system at least one transaction threshold corresponding to at least one of the plurality of transaction protocols (see Taveau, para. 0028) ; and redirecting the computer system via the browser to the second network address further based on the at least one transaction threshold (see Chidambaram Asokan para. 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 8, Taveau discloses: providing by the computer system via a user interface an indication of the particular identifier; receiving via the computer system via the user interface a confirmation of the particular identifier; and initiating the first electronic transaction responsive to the confirmation (see para. 0034-0040).
Regarding claim 9, Taveau discloses: receiving from the user via the computer system at least one transaction threshold corresponding to at least one of the plurality of transaction protocols; and determining the particular identifier further based on the at least one transaction threshold (see para. 0028, wherein the number of points is a transaction threshold).
Regarding claim 15, Taveau discloses: detecting at least one electronic message received by the computer system, the at least one electronic message comprising at least one other transaction protocol; and determining the particular identifier further based on the at least one other transaction protocol (see para. 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Taveau discloses: determining by the computer system a plurality of electronic transactions between the user and the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on the plurality of identifiers; and determining the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the plurality of electronic transactions (see para. 0010, 0027).
Claims 10-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taveau (US 2015/0348006 A1) in view of Taheri (US 2025/0117836 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Taveau discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a plurality of identifiers respectively corresponding to a plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0010, 0025-0027);
determining at least one electronic transaction between a user and at least one of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on at least one of the plurality of identifiers (see para. 0025-0027);
detecting by the computer system an electronic transaction request (see para. 0025-0027);
initiating a first electronic transaction with a particular transaction fulfillment system of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems based on the particular identifier to fulfill the electronic transaction request (see para. 0034-0040)
Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches:
scanning a plurality of network locations to determine a plurality of transaction protocols respectively corresponding to the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0043, wherein “scanning” encompasses the model being trained on samples from the web, credit card documents, mappings between product identifiers and credit card benefits which may be pulled from one or more external data stores 330 such as publicly available sites; wherein transaction protocols broadly encompass benefits in view para. 0024 of Applicant’s specification);
determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations to determine the plurality of transaction protocols respectively corresponding to the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0043, wherein the training data comprises text data);
calculating a plurality of embeddings respectively based on the plurality of text instances (see para. 0026, 0044, wherein the vectorized training data are calculated embeddings);
calculating another embedding based on the electronic transaction request (see para. 0031, 0036, wherein vectorized inputs to the model are calculated embeddings);
comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances (see para. 0031-0033); and
applying a model to the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction to determine the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers, the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the at least one electronic transaction (see para. 0023, 0031-0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification assistance in identifying the best card to use (see Taheri, para. 0023, 0031-0033, 0104).
Regarding claim 11, Taheri teaches: applying the model to the plurality of text instances to calculate the plurality of embeddings; generating a query based on the electronic transaction request; and applying the model to the query to calculate the another embedding (see para. 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 12, Taheri teaches: scanning other network locations to determine other text instances; and training the model based on the other text instances (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 13, Taheri teaches: wherein the model comprises a generative large language model (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 14, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations; applying a first model to calculate a plurality of embeddings respectively based on the plurality of text instances; applying the first model to calculate another embedding based on the electronic transaction request; comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances; and applying a second model to the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction to determine the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 18, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: scanning other network locations to determine text instances; training a model based on the text instances; and determining the particular identifier further based on the model (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 19, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations; scanning other network locations to determine other text instances; training a model based on the other text instances; applying the model to the plurality of text instances to calculate a plurality of embeddings; generating a query based on the electronic transaction request; applying the model to the query to calculate another embedding; comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances; and determining the particular identifier based on the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 20, Taheri teaches: detecting at least one electronic message received by the computer system, the at least one electronic message comprising at least one other transaction protocol; and generating the query further based on the at least one electronic transaction and the at least one other transaction protocol (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 21, Taveau discloses: measuring wireless signals by the computer system; determining a source of the electronic transaction request based on the measuring the wireless signals; and generating the query further based on the at least one electronic transaction and the source of the electronic transaction request (see para. 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalgi (US 2013/0013499 A1) discloses an Electronic Wallet Checkout Platform (EWCP). In one implementation, the EWCP receives a merchant payment request, and determines a payment protocol handler associated with the merchant payment request. The EWCP instantiates a wallet application via the payment protocol handler. The EWCP obtains a payment method selection via the wallet application, wherein the selected payment method is one of a credit card, a debit card, a gift card selected from an electronic wallet, and sends a transaction execution request for a transaction associated with the merchant payment request. Also, the EWCP receives a purchase response to the transaction execution request, and outputs purchase response information derived from the received purchase response.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Michael W 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights