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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 01/30/2026.
Claims 7 and 14 Have been cancelled.
New claims 21- and 22 have been added.
5. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are currently pending and are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a method, which is a statutory class, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a device including one or more processors and one or more memories configured with transaction affinity platform (TAP) components, transaction data associated with one or more transactions associated with an account;
determining, by the device and during a transaction event, a relationship strength value between a first merchant, associated with a particular transaction of the one or more transactions, and a second merchant,
wherein the relationship strength value is associated with historical merchant affinity data related to historical transactions associated with the first merchant and the second merchant, and
wherein the historical merchant affinity data is determined based on merchant affinity count values;
determining, by the device and during the transaction event, that the relationship strength value meets a threshold relationship strength value;
generating, by the device and based on the relationship strength value meeting the threshold relationship strength value, merchant recommendation data identifying the second merchant; and
transmitting, by the device and to another device associated with the account, at least a portion of the merchant recommendation data, that enables selection related to the at least one portion of the merchant recommendation data within the interface while the other device accesses data associated with the transaction event,
wherein the at least one portion of the merchant recommendation data is transmitted while the other device accesses the data associated with the transaction event and before a new transaction event occurs, and
wherein one or more transaction affinity processes are distributed across the TAP components and the other device to conserve memory and processing resources when delivering dynamic merchant recommendations.
The steps of,
obtaining, by a device including one or more processors and one or more memories configured with transaction affinity platform (TAP) components, transaction data associated with one or more transactions associated with an account;
determining, by the device and during a transaction event, a relationship strength value between a first merchant, associated with a particular transaction of the one or more transactions, and a second merchant,
wherein the relationship strength value is associated with historical merchant affinity data related to historical transactions associated with the first merchant and the second merchant, and
wherein the historical merchant affinity data is determined based on merchant affinity count values;
determining, by the device and during the transaction event, that the relationship strength value meets a threshold relationship strength value;
generating, by the device and based on the relationship strength value meeting the threshold relationship strength value, merchant recommendation data identifying the second merchant; and
transmitting, by the device and to another device associated with the account, at least a portion of the merchant recommendation data, that enables selection related to the at least one portion of the merchant recommendation data within the interface while the other device accesses data associated with the transaction event,
wherein the at least one portion of the merchant recommendation data is transmitted while the other device accesses the data associated with the transaction event and before a new transaction event occurs, and
wherein one or more transaction affinity processes are distributed across the TAP components and the other device to conserve memory and processing resources when delivering dynamic merchant recommendations
,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for dynamically generating and providing transaction affinity recommendation data. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to
transmitting a portion of the merchant recommendation data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as commercial interaction, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a device, one or more memories and one or more processors. The device, one or more memories and one or more processors is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of obtaining transaction data; determining, that the relationship strength value meets a threshold relationship strength value; generating, merchant recommendation data identifying the second merchant; and transmitting, at least a portion of the merchant recommendation data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a device, one or more memories and one or more processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the menu to the second location as performed by a generic computer components (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a device, one or more memories and one or more processors, performing commercial interactions including: obtaining transaction data; determining, that the relationship strength value meets a threshold relationship strength value; generating, merchant recommendation data identifying the second merchant; and transmitting, at least a portion of the merchant recommendation data, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, these claims recite “wherein the merchant affinity count values indicate a number of times the account was used in a transaction involving the first merchant and the second merchant.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 3, 10 and 17, these claims recite “wherein the merchant affinity count values are determined based on how many times over a time period a first transaction was processed with the first merchant followed by a second transaction being processed with the second merchant.” These claim recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, these claims recite “wherein the historical merchant affinity data is determined further based on information associated with a sequential relationship between a first transaction related to the first merchant and a second transaction related to the second merchant.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 8 and 15 to improve timeline of events by maximizing total outcome. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 5, 12 and 19, these claims recite “wherein the historical merchant affinity data is determined further based on information indicating that the account was used in a first transaction related to the first merchant immediately before a second transaction related to the second merchant.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 8 and 15 to improve timeline of events by maximizing total outcome. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 6, 13 and 20, these claims recite “wherein the relationship strength value is further based on information indicating a geographic distance between the first merchant and the second merchant.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 8 and 15, in determining the improved timeline of events is not to be feasible when there is not one or more time periods between each event for a product location pair. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 7 and 14, these claims recite “wherein the historical merchant affinity data is determined further based on determining whether a temporal relationship between a first transaction of the historical transactions and a second transaction of the historical transactions meets a threshold value that is determined based on location category information.” These claim recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
9. Examiner notes that aside from the " a device, one or more memories and one or more processors " which are "additional elements', the remainder of the claims have been identified as part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer (i.e., processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software). In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements'. Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. Thus, the "additional elements" as a whole are just a processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
10. Regarding the prior art rejection:
The closest art of record, the combination of Faith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/03000940) in view of Tomkins et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,251,168) and further in view of Lee (U.S. pub. No. 2016/0350866) do not teach at least the combination of: determining, by the device and during a transaction event, a relationship strength value between a first merchant, associated with a particular transaction of the one or more transactions, and a second merchant, wherein the relationship strength value is associated with historical merchant affinity data related to historical transactions associated with the first merchant and the second merchant, and wherein the historical merchant affinity data is determined based on merchant affinity count values; determining, by the device and during the transaction event, that the relationship strength value meets a threshold relationship strength value; and generating, by the device and based on the relationship strength value meeting the threshold relationship strength value, merchant recommendation data identifying the second merchant; generating, by the device and before a new transaction occurs after the second transaction, first merchant recommendation data associated with a set of merchants that have an affinity relationship with a target merchant associated at least one transaction in the first transaction or the second transaction; and transmitting, by the device and to an interface of a user device associated with the first account record, at least one portion of the first merchant recommendation data.
11. However, the combination of Faith in view of Tomkins and Lee does not teach at least: determining, by a device, that an affinity relationship information request has been generated; determining, by the device, a type of affinity relationship information request based on determining that the affinity relationship information request has been generated, the type of affinity relationship information request being associated with at least one of: a location based request, a merchant hop count request, or a merchant category request; the time variances being determined based upon predetermined location category information, the predetermined location category information being associated with at least one of: an urban location, or a rural location; generating, by the device, transaction affinity relationship data based on the temporal relationship. Moreover, the missing claimed elements from the combination of Faith in view of Tomkins and Lee are not found in a reasonable number of references. Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to include these missing elements in the combination of Faith in view of Tomkins and Lee because a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention would not find a motivation for the combination.
Prior art considered:
12. Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,665,874) discloses determining, based on a collaborative filtering algorithm, a consumer relevance value associated with an item, and transmitting, based on the consumer relevance value, information associated with the item to a consumer. A collaborative filtering algorithm may receive as an input a transaction history associated with the consumer, a demographic of the consumer, a consumer profile, a type of transaction account, a transaction account associated with the consumer, a period of time that the consumer has held a transaction account, a size of wallet, and/or a share of wallet. The method may further comprise generating a ranked list of items based upon consumer relevance values, transmitting a ranked list of items to a consumer, and/or re-ranking a ranked list of items based upon a merchant goal (see at least the Abstract).
13. Vaid (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0288330) discloses making an initial product offering of tangible products and services. A price for a product may be determined by calculating an aggregate customer history factor by aggregating customer history factors of potential purchasers in a buying group, calculating a cumulative demand for a product as a function of (i) expected purchase quantities of the product indicated by the potential purchasers in the buying group and (ii) the aggregate customer history factor, and setting a price of the product as a function of the cumulative demand for the buying group. The tangible products and services may be offered at the determined price (see at least the Abstract).
14. Van der Riet (U.S. Patent No. 7,158,943) discloses an interactive marketing communication and transaction/distribution services platform for building and managing personalized customer relationships. The invention provides consumers with privacy, product/retailer (re)search, shopping and ad based personalized info, news and entertainment services, its manufacturing and retailing clients with interactive marketing communication, IT, research support and effectiveness benchmarking services and interactive media and telecom companies with premium advertising, needed to develop profitable ad-based personalized interactive info, news and entertainment services (see at least Field of Invention (2)).
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 pm.
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, llana Spar can be reached on 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 06/27/2026
Prosecution Insights