DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 9/11/2025, Applicant, on 12/11/2025, amended Claims 21, 24, 27-28, 31, 34-35, and 38. Claims 21-40 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding Double Patenting – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s filing and approval of a Terminal Disclaimer on 12/11/2025.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed at an abstract idea because the claims are not in one of the enumerated groupings, and that including a progression model that introduces a concrete data structure representing historical purchase activity progressions based on past payment transactions and associated environmental and/or behavioral data, which when combined with the steps of tokenizing payment vehicle data and determining a change in geographical or channel characteristics maps is anchored in technical processes, stating that it transforms raw transactional and behavioral data into a structural model, and thus is not a method of organizing activity. Examiner disagrees as the claims recite clear abstractions of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as per the rejection below. This is stated clearly by the office action, and the generation of a progression model limitation is part of the abstraction, and this does not change the fact there are two abstract ideas which are identified in the Claims. Further, at best this is utilization of current technologies to analyze data, as there is no improvement to the progression model, any technology, or technological process, and thus “Applying It” similar to Alice, not practically integrated, nor significantly more, and not eligible by the MPEP.
Applicant asserts the revised guidance states “an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or field amounts to an abstract idea integrated into a practical application, stating the amended limitations of “generating a progression model representing…” and “determining whether a change in geographical…” integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by stating paragraphs [0023], [0053], and [0054] and stating that by structuring and maintaining this progression model, the system may efficiently compare current transactions data against historical patterns, dynamically track changes in behavior, and generate more accurate predictions of future purchase transactions, which improves the system’s ability to process and analyze large volumes of data for decision making. Examiner disagrees as the amended limitation is part of the abstraction, as is the determining step, and at best this is utilization of current technologies, “Applying It”, and does not make these limitations eligible under 101. Further, the claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as the computing device, 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 a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as using data to make decisions is a managerial field and not technical field, and performing these actions on a computer would be utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant states the amended limitations of the claims are significantly more because the amended steps are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant further states that in Berkheimer analysis it is required that Examiner use an admission by the applicant in the specification or during prosecution, court cases holding elements conventional, or a written publication establishing that the elements are well understood, routine, and convention, and that the claims are significantly more as they are not taught by the prior art. Examiner disagrees as first this is a general allegation of eligibility as Applicant has not stated why these are an improvement other than stating that the prior art doesn’t teach this, and a Berkheimer analysis which uses Applicant’s own specification (#1 in the Berkheimer Memo stated in Applicant’s Remarks) has been performed and the claims merely utilize current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. Applicant also states in these Remarks as above that this is “enhancing efficiency and enabling more reliable automated decision-making”, and Examiner purports that even if this is an improvement, this is part of the abstraction. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as above, 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 Falkenborg, Carlson, and Reisman does not teach the amended limitations of the claims. Examiner disagrees as Falkenborg teaches generating a payment vehicle token by tokenizing payment vehicle data, based on the transaction data related to the current payment transaction as in [0085] where an identifier/token such as a GUID is received and identified for each of the current transactions, generating a progression model representing one or more historical purchase activity progressions based on one or more past payment transactions associated with the payment vehicle and corresponding environmental and/or behavioral data as in [0231] spending behavior/past is modeled based on patterns, whether it is a progresses or not, based on the payment vehicle and environmental/behavioral data, determining whether a change in geographical characteristics of geographical locations or channel characteristics related to channels of one or more past payment transactions to the current payment transaction associated with the payment vehicle token and the historical purchase activity progression as in [0298-307] where an attrition model is created and scored using the past/historical transaction data (spend behavior model) that depends on [0071] the particular channel, which is over a specific period of time as in [0220] which are [0367] a trend/pattern/progression is used in the purchase behavior, such as for a merchant or good or service as in [0318] which uses [0042] the location of the merchant, and this information and the predicted model is used to provide customized targeted offer for a customer over their particular channel, so the channel changes based on how the information correlates to the past behavior, and generating an indication of a predicted purchase transaction based on determining that the change maps to the historical purchase activity progression as in [0189] where the system predicts the future purchases of the user using the historical information using [0385] trends of aggregated purchases to predict further trends, behaviors, and transactions which are indications of progressions, which are predicted as in [0189-0191]. Falkenborg also teaches a progression or change velocity as in [0225] where there is a detected volume change (or progression as in Applicant’s specification [053] which shows that a progression is a change in usage – i.e. a determined progression using past a current payments), and determining a change in channel as above. Carlson teaches determining/identifying whether a progression of one or more of the past payment transactions to the current payment vehicle-based payment transaction maps to one of the historical purchase activity progressions from the plurality of historical purchase activity progressions as in [0108] where there is mapping of purchase identifiers to account data, such as the account data of Falkenborg which contains behavior information. Reisman teaches use of anonymous tokens or identifiers for each transaction as in [0166-168] where every current transaction uses this process. This teaches the amended limitations of the Claims.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the combination of Falkenborg, Carlson, and Reisman 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 recite limitations of receiving transaction data related to a current payment transaction associated with a payment vehicle (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); generating a payment vehicle token by tokenizing payment vehicle data, based on the transaction data related to the current payment transaction (Analyzing the Collected Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); affiliating the current payment transaction to the payment vehicle token (Analyzing the Collected Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); receiving environmental and/or behavioral data associated with the current payment transaction associated with the payment vehicle token (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); generating a progression model representing one or more historical purchase activity progressions based on one or more past payment transactions associated with the payment vehicle and corresponding environmental and/or behavioral data (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining whether a change in geographical characteristics of geographical locations or channel characteristics related to channels of the one or more past payment transactions to the current payment transaction associated with the payment vehicle token maps to a historical purchase activity progression in the progression model (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity) and generating an indication of a predicted purchase transaction based on determining that the change maps to the historical purchase activity progression (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgement, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing purposes; 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 organizing and tracking information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking transactions for Marketing purposes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a device, memory, one or more processors, and a computer-readable medium, 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 Manage Transactions/Commercial Interactions for Marketing purposes. For example, determining whether a change in geographical characteristics of geographical locations or channel characteristics related to channels maps to a historical purchase activity progression encompasses a supervisor, car salesman, or analyst noticing a consumer is shopping more online or another venue based on knowing where they shopped in the past, and thus should market more in the current geographic area, which is 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 judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Transactions, a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Tracking Transactions for Marketing, 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 device, memory, processors, and computer readable media 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 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:
“[0035] Still referring to FIG. 2A, the purchaser 200 utilizes a networked user device 206 to communicate with one or more online merchants 204 through a communications network 218 (e.g., the Internet, a secure network, etc.). The networked user device 206 can be any suitable computing device that facilitates network communications, such as, for example, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a smart television, a smart appliance, a mobile computing device, a gaming device, a wearable computing device, and so forth. When interacting with the online merchant 204, the networked user device 206 can be associated with a tracking element.”
Which states that any computer, desktop, phone, 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. For the receiving 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 systems, processors, etc., nor the receiving 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.
Independent Claims 21 and 35 contain the identified abstract ideas with the no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, and thus not integrated into a practical application, nor significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements and any being used being highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenborg (U.S. Publication No. 2011/031,3835) in view of Carlson (U.S. Publication No. 2017/009,8234) in further view of Reisman (U.S. Publication No. 2014/000,6309).
Regarding Claims 21, 28, and 35, Falkenborg teaches a method comprising:
receiving transaction data related to a current payment transaction associated with a payment vehicle ([0125] current transaction information/data is received over [0215] a payment processing network, a payment vehicle);
generating a payment vehicle token by tokenizing payment vehicle data, based on the transaction data related to the current payment transaction ([0085] an identifier/token such as a GUID is received and identified for each of the current transactions);
affiliating the current payment transaction with the payment vehicle token ([0115-116] the GUID/token is matched to the current transaction);
receiving environmental and/or behavioral data associated with the current payment transaction associated with the payment vehicle token ([0318] the behavioral data (purchase behavior) from transaction data which include the [0072] profile for a customer of a current transaction is used to update the transaction profiles used for the model as in [0053], which is associated with the payment vehicle [0115-116] where the GUID/token is matched to the current and transactions);
generating a progression model representing one or more historical purchase activity progressions based on one or more past payment transactions associated with the payment vehicle and corresponding environmental and/or behavioral data ([0231] spending behavior/past is modeled based on patterns, whether it is a progresses or not, based on the payment vehicle and environmental/behavioral data as above.)
determining whether a change in geographical characteristics of geographical locations or channel characteristics related to channels of one or more past payment transactions to the current payment transaction associated with the payment vehicle token and the historical purchase activity progression ([0298-307] an attrition model is created and scored using the past/historical transaction data (spend behavior model) that depends on [0071] the particular channel, which is over a specific period of time as in [0220] which are [0367] a trend/ pattern/ progression is used in the purchase behavior, such as for a merchant or good or service as in [0318] which uses [0042] the location of the merchant, and this information and the predicted model is used to provide customized targeted offer for a customer over their particular channel, so the channel changes based on how the information correlates to the past behavior) and
generating an indication of a predicted purchase transaction based on determining that the change maps to the historical purchase activity progression ([0189] the system predicts the future purchases of the user using the historical information using [0385] trends of aggregated purchases to predict further trends, behaviors, and transactions which are indications of progressions, which are predicted as in [0189-0191])).
Although Falkenborg teaches a progression or change velocity as in [0225] where there is a detected volume change (or progression as in Applicant’s specification [053] which shows that a progression is a change in usage – i.e. a determined progression using past a current payments), and determining a change in channel as above, it does not explicitly state mapping to one of the historical purchase activities.
Carlson teaches determining/identifying whether a progression of one or more of the past payment transactions to the current payment vehicle-based payment transaction maps to one of the historical purchase activity progressions from the plurality of historical purchase activity progressions ([0108] mapping of purchase identifiers to account data, such as the account data of Falkenborg which contains behavior information).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the change/velocity detection in trends of Falkenborg with the mapping to behavioral data of Carlson as they are analogous art which both teach solutions in predicting behaviors of consumers, and the combination would lead to better predictive data which would increase conversion of marketing/advertising campaigns, such as targeted offers, as taught in [0053] of Carlson.
Although the combination of Falkenborg and Carlson teach use of a GUI with the mapping of purchase identifiers, they do not explicitly state use of a token.
Reisman teaches use of anonymous tokens or identifiers for each transaction as in [0166-168] where every current transaction uses this process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the GUID of transactions of the combination of Falkenborg and Carlson with the tokenization of transactions of Reisman as they are analogous art which all teach solutions in predicting behaviors of consumers as it pertains to a product or a service, it is old and well-known in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to tokenize transactions for anonymity and security purposes, and the combination would lead to an increase in value to the post service market data and thus improve efficiency and pricing, increasing profits, as taught in [0100] of Reisman.
Examiner notes Falkenborg teaches a device with memory ([0202] system with memory), one or more computer readable media storing instructions for predicting the consumer spending behavior ([0461] machine readable medium); and one or more processors ([0202] processor in the system).
Regarding Claims 22, 29, and 36, Falkenborg teaches further comprising:
generating a targeted offer for a consumer based on the indication of the predicted purchase transaction ([0071] predicted model for purchasing use used to provide customized targeted offer for a customer over their particular channel).
Regarding Claims 23, 30, and 37, Falkenborg teaches The method of claim 22, further comprising:
transmitting the targeted offer to the consumer based on the indication of the predicted purchase transaction, the targeted offer being an electronic offer to the consumer ([0097] online offer sent via a portal, or electronically).
Regarding Claims 24, 31, and 38, Falkenborg teaches further comprising:
transmitting the indication of the at least one predicted purchase transaction, the indication of the at least one predicted purchase transaction being an indication of a change in a usage of one or more payment vehicles or payment networks used in payment transactions ([0238-239] transaction changes or velocities are tracked by the system over the payment network of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claims 25, 32, and 39, Falkenborg teaches wherein the environmental and/or behavioral data includes data related to a channel of purchase used in the current payment transaction.
Regarding Claims 26, 33, and 40, the combination of Falkenborg, Carlson, and Resiman teaches wherein the environmental and/or behavioral data associated with the one or more of the past payment transactions or the current payment transaction as in Claim 21 above, and Falkenborg teaches wherein this includes data related to a geographical location of a consumer ([0042] location of the merchant) or a merchant in the current payment transaction ([0029] merchant data in the transaction);
Regarding Claims 27 and 34, Falkenborg teaches wherein the environmental and/or behavioral data includes data related to any online activity of the consumer ([0432-433] transaction data includes an exchange of fund and are transferred electronically over a network from a merchant account).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110087519 A1
Fordyce, III; Edward W. et al.
Systems and Methods for Panel Enhancement with Transaction Data
US 20130191195 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PRESENT AND PROCESS OFFERS
US 20160012452 A1
Unser; Kenny et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING CARD HOLDER PREFERENCE
US 20150019329 A1
Ramer; Jorey et al.
Dynamic Bidding and Expected Value
US 20170098234 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO REWARD USER INTERACTIONS
US 20150039388 A1
Rajaraman; Arun
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING CONSUMER PROFILES FOR TARGETED MARKETPLACE ACTIVITIES
US 20140074687 A1
Halpern; Paul
ASSESSING CONSUMER PURCHASE BEHAVIOR IN MAKING A FINANCIAL CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION DECISION
US 20110313900 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
Systems and Methods to Predict Potential Attrition of Consumer Payment Account
US 20110231258 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Distribute Advertisement Opportunities to Merchants
US 20170039599 A1
Tunnell; Andrew et al.
System and Method to Personalize Products and Services
US 20140006309 A1
Reisman; Richard
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING DATA FOR AN ITEM
US 20140172625 A1
Reisman; Richard
Method And Apparatus For Collecting Data For An Item
US 20130191198 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO REDEEM OFFERS BASED ON A PREDETERMINED GEOGRAPHIC REGION
US 20100161379 A1
Bene; Marc Del et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR FROM TRANSACTION CARD PURCHASES
US 20110093327 A1
Fordyce, III; Edward W. et al.
Systems and Methods to Match Identifiers
US 20120109734 A1
Fordyce, III; Edward W. et al.
Systems and Methods to Match Identifiers
US 20130191213 A1
Beck; Andrew et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO FORMULATE OFFERS VIA MOBILE DEVICES AND TRANSACTION DATA
US 20170200176 A1
DeAngelo; Scott Wayne et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING CONSUMER SPEND BEHAVIORS
US 20170200192 A1
DeAngelo; Scott Wayne et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PREDICTED CONSUMER SPEND BASED ON HISTORICAL PURCHASE ACTIVITY PROGRESSIONS
US 20220230164 A1
Howe; Justin X. et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFECTIVELY ANONYMIZING CONSUMER TRANSACTION DATA
US 20130218670 A1
Spears; Joseph et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROCESS AN OFFER CAMPAIGN BASED ON INELIGIBILITY
US 20120158455 A1
Pathak; Nishith et al.
ESTIMATING VALUE OF USER'S SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON OTHER USERS OF COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEM
US 20130218664 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROVIDE AND ADJUST OFFERS
US 20110231225 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Identify Customers Based on Spending Patterns
US 20110231257 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Identify Differences in Spending Patterns
US 20150039390 A1
Hu; Po et al.
MOBILE MARKETING AND TARGETING USING PURCHASE TRANSACTION DATA
US 20130197991 A1
Basu; Gourab et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROCESS PAYMENTS BASED ON PAYMENT DEALS
US 20170201779 A1
Publicover; Mark W. et al.
COMPUTERIZED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING CUSTOMIZED ENTERTAINMENT CONTENT
US 20160063546 A1
Ghosh; Debashis et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING TIMELY AND TARGETED OFFERS
US 20130204703 A1
Carlson; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PROCESS REFERRALS IN OFFER CAMPAIGNS
US 20130151388 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO IDENTIFY AFFLUENCE LEVELS OF ACCOUNTS
US 20130346264 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
Systems and Methods to Identify Affluence Levels of Accounts
US 20120066065 A1
Switzer; Nancy
Systems and Methods to Segment Customers
US 20130046607 A1
Granville, III; Walter J.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO COMMUNICATE OFFER OPTIONS VIA MESSAGING IN REAL TIME WITH PROCESSING OF PAYMENT TRANSACTION
US 20110231305 A1
Winters; Michelle Eng
Systems and Methods to Identify Spending Patterns
US 20160012457 A1
Unser; Kenny et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SALES STRATEGY OPTIMIZATION
US 20110313835 A1
Falkenborg; Nathan Kona et al.
Systems and Methods to Prevent Potential Attrition of Consumer Payment Account
US 9706265 B2
Harrison; David A.
Automatic communications between networked devices such as televisions and mobile devices
US 9535897 B2
Anderson; Glen et al.
Content recommendation system using a neural network language model
US 9773246 B2
Faith; Patrick et al.
Pre-authorization of a transaction using predictive modeling
US 8706647 B2
Pathak; Nishith et al.
Estimating value of user's social influence on other users of computer network system
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 12/31/2025
Prosecution Insights