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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed October 31, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 10, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10776809. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and the instant application comprise an itemized digital receipt that apply points for the purchase of one or more items.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-6, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant’s specification is silent to the limitation of claim1 1, 9 and 14. The applicant’s specification discloses the use of a timeout period at paragraphs [0046], which states,” if the PSS 108 then does not receive a request to use rewards points for the transaction from the user within a predetermined timeout period (step 507), the process simply ends without applying any rewards points to the transaction…” and “If, however, the PSS 108 does receive a request to use rewards points within the timeout period, then the PSS 108 attempts to authenticate the request at step 508. Authentication may be done by, for example, requiring the user to input the payment card's CVV…” [0055] which states, “After sending the message, if the PSS 108 then does not receive a request to use rewards points for the payment from the user within a predetermined timeout period (step 707), the process simply continues by causing the cash transfer to be executed at step 710….and [0056] states, “ If the PSS 108 does receive a request from the payer to use rewards points for the payment within the timeout period, however, then the PSS 108 attempts to authenticate the payer's request at step 708…” There does not appear to be any language that teaches or suggest the limitation of claims 1, 9 and 14. The applicant’s specification is completely silent to a timeout period being associated with interface controls.
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 – 6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1, 9 and 14
receiving, by a payment service, an electronic message comprising a request to transfer funds of a specified amount from a first account of a first user to a second account of a second user;
causing, by the payment service, presentation of an itemized interactive digital receipt on to display to the first user, wherein the itemized interactive digital receipt includes a number of points associated with the first account, a listing of a plurality of items, a point value corresponding to individual items in the listing of the plurality of items and a plurality of user interface controls, wherein an individual user interface control corresponds to a respective point value corresponding to an individual item of the plurality of items when selected comprises a request to pay for the individual item using the respective point value corresponding to the individual item and wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily configured for selection during a predetermined time period;
receiving, operated by the payment service, from the computing system of the first user, an indication of selection of one or more selected user plurality of interface controls of the user interface controls, within the predetermined timeout period; and
based on receiving the indication of the selection within the predetermined timeout period, causing, by the payment service, the funds of the specified amount to be electronically transferred to the second account, wherein an amount of points corresponding to a total of the points values of the selected items are used to satisfy at least a portion of the funds of the specified amount.
The limitations of independent claim 1, 9, and 14 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity because the claims have concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The applicant’s claims (in summary) receive transaction information, presentation of an itemized receipt, applying points to associated items, receiving a selection to use the points and using the points to satisfy at least a portion of the funds needed. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using a computing system, processor, non-transitory computer readable media, display. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving, causing, and transferring ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computing system, processor, non-transitory computer readable media, display 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.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15-20 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 – 6, 8-20 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8 – 11, 13 -15, 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott et al. (US 2021/0118046) in view of Buchheit et al (US 2010/0268587) in further view of Postrel (US 2010/0280896)
Claim 1, 9, 14: Elliot discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing system operated by a payment service, an electronic message comprising a request to transfer funds of a specified amount from a first account of a first user to a second account of a second user;(see for example [0104], discloses authorization message approving or denying the transaction, which may be routed through card association computer system 129, merchant processor computer system 128, and network 106 to merchant computer system 102. It will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the merchant may then complete the transaction with the customer and perform settlement in a similar manner to receive payment for the transaction from the account provider (e.g., weekly batch files for processing, electronic ACH transfers).
receiving, by the computing system operated by the payment service, from the computing system of the first user, an indication of selection of one or more selected user interface controls of the plurality user interface controls,
based on receiving the indication of the selection, causing, by the computing system operated by the payment service, the funds of the specified amount to be electronically transferred to the second account, wherein an amount of points corresponding to a total of the points values of the selected items are used to satisfy at least a portion of the funds of the specified amount.(fig. 9 [0069, 0082]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the selection comprises a request to use points for selected items, of the plurality items, corresponding to the one or more selected user interface controls; and
causing, by the computing system operated by the payment service, presentation of an itemized interactive digital receipt on a display of a computing system of the first user, wherein the itemized interactive digital receipt includes a number of points associated with the first account, a listing of a plurality of items, and a plurality of user interface controls, wherein an individual user interface control corresponds to a respective item of plurality of items and is interactable to select or deselect a corresponding item However Buchheit discloses wherein the selection comprises a request to use points for selected items, of the plurality items, corresponding to the one or more selected user interface control; (fig 3 and [0052] causing, by the computing system operated by the payment service, presentation of an itemized interactive digital receipt on a display of a computing system of the first user, wherein the itemized interactive digital receipt includes a number of points associated with the first account, a listing of a plurality of items, and a plurality of user interface controls, wherein an individual user interface control corresponds to a respective point value corresponding to an individual item of plurality of items and (see for example Fig. 3 and [0052], GUI 320 can be an interface window from a conversion agency. GUI 320 includes display box 322 and button 325. GUI 320 can be rendered by any of a variety of means including, but not limited to, a Web browser, a JAVA applet, a PERL script, and the like. In one embodiment, GUI 320 can be contained within checkout register. GUI 320 can display the balance of non-negotiable, entertainment credits earned from one or more game providing entities. GUI 320 contains a means by which the user selects the type of non-negotiable credits to convert including, but not limited to, a set of radio buttons, a set of checkboxes, a highlighting mechanism, and the like. Display box 322 can display the monetary value of the selected non-negotiable credits. The value displayed in display box 322 can be based on preset conversion factors. Button 325 can represent the initiation of the process by which the selected non-negotiable credits are converted to negotiable funds. Selection of button 325 by a user can produce GUI 330.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, system and non-transitory computer readable media of Elliot so as to have included causing, by the computing system operated by the payment service, presentation of an itemized interactive digital receipt on a display of a computing system of the first user, wherein the itemized interactive digital receipt includes a number of points associated with the first account, a listing of a plurality of items, and a plurality of user interface controls, wherein an individual user interface control corresponds to a respective item of plurality of items and is interactable to select or deselect a corresponding item in order to have the option for the quantity of funds are able to be applied to user specified purchases. (Buchheit, abstract)
Furthermore because each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art,
albeit in different references or embodiments, the difference between the claimed subject matter
and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself
that is in the substitution of a GUI/checkbox system as disclosed by Buchheit for the
GUI system to be used in Elliot. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for
another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Elliot and Buchheit do not explicitly disclose when selected comprises a request to pay for the individual item using the respective point value corresponding to the individual item, and wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily configured for selection during a predetermined timeout period. However Postrel discloses when selected comprises a request to pay for the individual item using the respective point value corresponding to the individual item, and wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily configured for selection during a predetermined timeout period. ([0020] a price discount schedule that specifies price discounts to be automatically generated by the exchange computer as a function of elapsed time that a specified product is available for purchase; (2) a redemption schedule that specifies redemption discounts to be automatically generated by the exchange computer as a function of elapsed time that a specified product is available for purchase; and/or (3) a transacted value discount schedule that specifies transacted value discounts to be automatically generated by the exchange computer as a function of elapsed time that a specified product is available for purchase.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, system and non-transitory computer readable media of Elliot so as to have included when selected comprises a request to pay for the individual item using the respective point value corresponding to the individual item, and wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily configured for selection during a predetermined timeout period in order to allow a user to pay for individual items to satisfy portion or all of the necessary funds. (Postrel, abstract)
Claim 2, 15: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the method of claim 1 and non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, wherein the request to transfer the funds is associated with at least one of a lease, a rental, a purchase of goods, or a purchase of services. [0069] Elliot
Claim 3,16: Elliot and Buchheit disclose the method of claim 1 and non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, Buchheit further discloses wherein at least one user interface control of the user interface controls comprises a radio button [0052]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and non-transitory computer readable media of Elliot so as to have included causing, wherein at least one user interface control of the user interface controls comprises a radio button. in order to have the option to select specific items. (Buchheit, abstract)
Furthermore because each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art,
albeit in different references or embodiments, the difference between the claimed subject matter
and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself
that is in the substitution of a GUI/checkbox system as disclosed by Buchheit for the
GUI system to be used in Elliot. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for
another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 4,17: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing presentation of the itemized interactive digital receipt comprises at least one of sending a short messaging service (SMS) message, sending an email, sending a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message, or sending instructions to a payment application executing on the computing system of the first user. ([0043], Elliot)
Claim 5, 10, 18: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electronic message comprises a first electronic message, the method further comprising:
responsive to receiving the first electronic message comprising the request to transfer the funds, sending, by the computing system operated by the payment service, a second electronic message to a computing system of the second user, wherein the second electronic message is associated with the request to transfer the funds. (([0075 and 0077] first message is authorization for the transaction and the second message would be the settlement of the transaction) Elliot)
Claim 6, 11: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing presentation of the itemized interactive digital receipt comprises causing presentation of a hyperlink corresponding to a storage location at the payment service of the itemized interactive digital receipt.([0049], The web browser program may receive the web page and render it on a monitor or screen. The customer may then interact with the web page by, for example, clicking on buttons or activating links associated with the web page or entering information with a keyboard. Also see Fig. 8, [0067] discloses one or more interactive web pages downloaded and displayed on a personal computer or mobile device, for example, or any other mechanism for displaying and receiving information for performing a purchase transaction using rewards points. applicant’s specification at [0045] a hyperlink to a location where the interactive digital receipt is stored, which is downloaded to the user device only when the user activates the hyperlink) Elliot
Claim 8, 13: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the funds of the specified amount to be electronically transferred to the second account is further based on authenticating the request to transfer the funds, wherein authentication is based on comparing personal information received by the computing system of the payment service from the computing system of the first user with stored personal information stored in a database associated with the payment service.[0101 and 0102] Elliot
Claim 19: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein causing presentation of the itemized interactive digital receipt comprises causing presentation of a hyperlink corresponding to the itemized interactive digital receipt.(fig. 8) Elliot
Claim 21: Elliot and Buchheit discloses the system of claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of user interface controls comprise radio buttons;
However Buchheit discloses wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily available for interaction during a predetermined timeout period. [0052]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Elliot and Buchheit so as to have wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily available for interaction during a predetermined timeout period in order to give a variety of selectable options. (Buchheit, 0052)
Claim(s) 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott et al. (US 2021/0118046) in view Buchheit et al (US 2010/0268587) in view of Postrel (US 2010/0280896) and further in view of Deibert et al. (US 9,647,855)
Claim 12, and 20: Elliot discloses the system of claim 9, computer readable media of claim 14 further comprising: but does not explicitly disclose
determining, by the computing system operated by the payment service, that the indication was received within a predetermined timeout period, wherein causing the funds of the specified amount to be electronically transferred to the second account is further based at least in part on determining that the indication was received within the predetermined timeout period. However Deibert discloses determining, by the computing system operated by the payment service, that the indication was received within a predetermined timeout period, wherein causing the funds of the specified amount to be electronically transferred to the second account is further based at least in part on determining that the indication was received within the predetermined timeout period.(Col. 3 lines 44-62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, was made to modify, Elliot, Buchheit, and Postrelto include determining, by the computing system operated by the payment service, that the indication was received within a predetermined timeout period, wherein causing the funds of the specified amount to be electronically transferred to the second account is further based at least in part on determining that the indication was received within the predetermined timeout period. The rationale for doing so is that applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 101 rejection, that the claims are not directed to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The applicant respectfully disagrees the applicant’s claims are directed (paraphrased) to receiving at a payment service a request to transfer funds of a specified amount, presentation of purchase transaction information(e.g. itemized digital receipt), user interaction of said presentation and then transferring of fund to another account, where points are used to satisfy a portion of funds. Which encompasses fundamental economic processes, commercial interactions, sales activities, and business relations, and thus considered “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” The recited user interface elements are merely how the business rules for redeeming points are presented and implemented. Therefore merely using a user interface doesn’t take a claim out of the aforementioned abstract idea grouping even when implemented via a computer. The applicant further argues that the features of the claim are purely technological. The Examiner respectfully disagrees there isn’t anything in the MPEP that states that if the claim is purely technological that it makes the claim not an abstract idea. Thus as stated in the 101 rejection and the response above the applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea. The applicant argues the 101 rejection via the USPTO memo and that the claims have limitations that are indication of integration of a practical application and cites paragraph 0046 of the specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees [0046] does not disclose an improvement to the interface, nor the additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” The cited paragraph does not disclose an unconventional solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s paragraph 0046 does not disclose an improved interface. The interface merely operates in its intended purpose of receiving a preferences from a user to apply reward points to a transaction. The applicant argues the claim limitation meaningfully limits the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees to be considered as meaningful limits, the limitations must amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant’s claims do not meaningful limit the claims because they merely link the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. implementation via computers – see MPEP 2106.05(e).
The applicant refers to the UPSTO memo in regards to if it is a close call. However the Examiner believes that this is not a close call and is definitely more than 50% an abstract idea. The applicant’s additional elements of a computing system operated by a payment services, display of a computing system, itemized digital receipt, user interface controls, electronic transfer of funds between accounts, are all generic computer components performing their ordinary function. The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself, use a specific technical solution to a technical problem, effect any transformation beyond conventional electronic data/funds movement.
The applicant further argues the 101 rejection that even if the additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional activity when considered individually the combination of additional elements may amount to an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the ordered combination has been considered, however the combination merely automates known commercial practices using generic technology and thus is not an inventive concept. The claims merely implement business logic using generic computing components does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(a) has given examples of types of interfaces that may show an improvement in computer functionality.
x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
xi. Specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009, 128 USPQ2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
The applicant’s claims do not have any similar features to the cited court cases above. The applicant’s interface does not detect a current state (e.g. unlaunched applications) and then use that data to provide information to the user and then allow that user to launch the applications. Nor does the applicant’s user interface use techniques that are unique to computers. However, the applicant’s claims are similar to the decided court case that have been indicated to not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. The applicant’s claims are similar to viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019) The applicant’s claims merely use a user interface to display transactional information, by allowing users to interact to apply an amount of points corresponding to a total of the points values of the selected items are used to satisfy at least a portion of the funds of the specified amount.
The applicant further argues that, “It is unconventional to "caus[e] presentation of an itemized interactive digital receipt on a display of a computing system of the first user, wherein the itemized interactive digital receipt includes a number of points associated with the first account, a listing of a plurality of items, a point value corresponding to individual items in the listing of the plurality of items, and a plurality of user interface controls, wherein an individual user interface control corresponds to a respective point value corresponding to an individual item of the plurality of items and when selected comprises a request to pay for the individual item using the respective point value corresponding to the individual item, and wherein the plurality of user interface controls are temporarily configured for selection during a predetermined timeout period," as recited in amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees MPEP 2106.05(d) states that courts have found to be well understood, routine and conventional, i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Furthermore the applicant’s limitations each recited feature operates in its expected and conventional manner such as a computer device displaying transaction information, allowing user interaction via generic controls, enforces a timeout, and processes a payment using reward points. The ordered combination merely automates known commercial practice using a generic computing environment which does not amount do significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore simply labeling something as unconventional does not make them so and the applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence that the claimed elements or their arrangement represent a non-conventional technological improvement.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not appear to have any limitations that indication a practical application. Thus the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 31, 2025, are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622