DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Feb. 26, 2026, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when sending the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–21 are pending and examined with Claims 1, 8, and 15 in independent form.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed May 21, 2024, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues Rep. Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One. Examiner improperly reduced Rep. Claim 1 to “causing transfer of funds … to settle the amount owed by the merchant” and ignored the remaining technical limitations, contrary to McRO and Desjardins, both of which require evaluating the claims as a whole and avoiding over generalization when determining whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Applicant’s Reply at 8–9. Applicant further argues “[t]his ordered combination of steps, utilizing specific data structures … is not a concept that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.” Id. at 9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At Step 2A Prong One, Examiner meets his initial burden of establishing that a claim is ineligible for patenting by “identif[ing] the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., sets forth or describes) in the claim and explain[ing] why it is considered an exception” so that “applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond.” MPEP § 2106.07. Examiner identified the commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity judicial exception by referring to what is recited using the language of the Rep. Claim 1. Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 26, 2025 [“Non-Final Office Action”] at 5. Rep. Claim 1, as a whole, remains a commercial interaction (discounted electronic settlement between merchant, issuer, and purchaser) implemented on generic computer components. Applicant does not dispute this except in a conclusory way. 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Applicant also appears to misapprehend the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO") guidance and the Non-Final Office Action. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter, the “101 Guidance")1; Non-Final Office Action at 5. An ordered combination analysis is not performed at Step 2A, Prong One and the Examiner did not find Rep. Claim 1 recites the mental process exception. The additional recited elements relied on by Applicant to argue the claims do not recite an abstract idea exception are properly evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B.
Applicant argues Rep. Claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the specification identifies a technical problem with existing single-channel payment networks (limited customization of settlement, rigid discount mechanisms, difficulty tracking discounts and refunds) and describes a technical solution using dual payment channels and structured discount data, which is recited by the claims. Applicant’s Reply at 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The specification’s discussion of limitations with existing payment networks describes business/infrastructure constraints and business rules governing financial systems owned and operated by others, not deficiencies in computer or network technology itself. The alleged technical solution is merely a rearrangement of where and how fees/discounts are settled using the existing infrastructure; rerouting financial obligations through existing network rails is an example of applying an abstract idea to a particular technological environment without improving that environment. The claim’s dual-channel arrangement and discount look-ups use known networks (e.g., card network plus ACH) and conventional data structures required of those networks to implement new pricing and cost-sharing rules, rather than an improvement to the functioning of the networks themselves.
Applicant argues the specific claim elements (1) “determining a second transaction value …” step; (2) "wherein the cost data comprises …” step; (3) the dual payment channel architecture; and (4) the temporal requirement when cost data is generated, are a particular technical solution to the identified network problem, analogous to DDR, BASCOM, and McRO. Applicant’s Reply at 11–12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
These claim elements are business rules (how and when discounts are applied) implemented with generic computer components and operations like comparing data, looking up entries, generating records, and transmitting messages. Unlike Enfish or DDR, the claims does not recite a new data structure or network mechanism that changes how the computer operates but instead impose a business logic workflow on otherwise conventional components.
Applicant argues that, like Desjardins where the claims improved how the machine learning model operated, here, Rep. Claim 1 improves “payment network technology” itself and the amended claims include all the components that provide that improvement: dual channels, discount look-up table associations, and transaction identifier correlations. Applicant’s Reply at 13.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Desjardins is inapposite because it claimed changes to how a model computes its output, which reflected “improvements in training the machine learning model itself” (p. 8) and allowed AI systems to “use less of their storage capacity” (p. 9) (i.e., the claims method changed how underlying machines learned and consumed resources). Here, the structure and operation of the underlying computer and network remain conventional and only the financial workflow differs. The payment network processes transactions the same way it always has; Rep. Claim 1 merely describes a new settlement policy or rule to be executed on the unchanged network infrastructure. Any improvement is to the abstract idea itself, (i.e., the settlement policy and discount accounting).
Applicant argues the specific combination of the look-up table, dual channels and transaction correlation is not well understood routine and conventional (“WRC”) and a specific implementation of the solution to a technical problem. The Examiner has provided no evidence that such a combination is WRC. Applicant’s Reply at 13–14.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Using tables to store discounts keyed to merchants/purchasers, using separate settlement rails (e.g., card network plus ACH), and tracking transactions via identifiers are all routine practices in payment processing, even if the exact combination is not documented in a single reference. The combination of known, routine elements does not become non-routine merely because it has not been previously combined for this particular business purpose. BASCOM (an inventive concept must be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known elements, not merely in their combination for a new business purpose). Examiner relied on Applicant's own specification to find the combination WRC. Non-Final Act. at 10–11. Specifically, Applicant's admissions at Spec. ¶ 33 (identifying the first payment channel as the pre-existing "VISA® payment network" and the second payment channel as using an existing "Automatic Clearing House (ACH)"); ¶ 49 (describing ACH as the existing "payment method constituting the second payment channel"); ¶ 89 ("Existing payment networks and single payment channel transaction settlement processes…"); ¶ 40 (describing the look-up table merely as a structure for storing discount identifiers without attributing any technical novelty to the table itself), all of which confirm that the card network, ACH rails, and look-up table structures are existing, industry-standard components deployed here for a new business purpose rather than as a technological improvement. However, Examiner has strengthened this finding below.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 15–2, filed Feb. 26, 2026, with respect to Claims 1–21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1–21 has been withdrawn.
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 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–21 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–7 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 8–14 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 15–21 recite a “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination. Normal font is used for limitations that recite the judicial exception. Bold font is used to indicate additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two (practical appellation) and Step 2B (significantly more). Italics font is used where necessary to identify intended use limitations2 and underline font is used, as needed, in further describing the judicial exception. Each limitation is identified by a letter designator for use as a shorthand notation when analyzing/referencing each limitation. Rep. Claim 1 recites:
[A] 1. A multi payment channel electronic transaction settlement system comprising memory and one or more processors configured for:
[B] receiving, using the one or more processors, first transaction data transmitted from a merchant using a first payment channel of a payment network, wherein the first transaction data comprises a merchant identifier, a purchaser identifier, and a first transaction value for a transaction between the merchant and a purchaser;
[B1] determining a second transaction value based at least in part on the first transaction value and a discount identified by comparing the first transaction data with discount data, the discount data being stored in a look-up table accessible to the one or more processors and comprising discount identifiers and respective associations with at least one of the merchant identifier or the purchaser identifier;
[C] deducting, using the one or more processors, the second transaction value from an account identified by the purchaser identifier, wherein the second transaction value is less than the first transaction value;
[D] subsequent to deducting the second transaction value from the account identified by the purchaser identifier, generating, using the one or more processors, cost data comprising an amount owed by the merchant to satisfy at least a portion of a difference between the second transaction value and the first transaction value, wherein the cost data comprises a transaction identifier that identifies the first transaction data;
[E] transmitting, through a second payment channel separate from the payment network, at least a portion of the cost data to the merchant; and
[F] causing transfer of funds through the second payment channel to settle the amount owed by the merchant.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “causing transfer of funds … to settle the amount owed by the merchant” in Limitation F, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because a transfer of funds to settle an amount owed by the merchant recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–E are the required steps and received data inputs required to “transfer funds” (perform the abstract exception) and therefore, recites the same exception. Id.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements identified in Rep. Claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: The additional elements are: a multi payment channel electronic transaction settlement system comprising memory and one or more processors, a first payment channel of a payment network, a look-up table accessible to the one or more processors, and a second payment channel separate from the payment network.
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
A claim improves technology only when it recites a specific improvement to the way a computer itself operates, not merely the application of an existing process using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, the specification describes implementing the claimed settlement process using conventional computer and computer components without any change to how those components themselves function. Spec. ¶¶ 26–32, 35, 36, 40. The first and second payment channels are also implemented on known payment networks (e.g., Visa®) and generic communication networks (e.g., ACH) without disclosing any new protocol or network operation. Spec. ¶ 33. The computer components and payment channels are described conventionally and are merely used as tools to carry out the abstract financial settlement process and thus, do not improve computer technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
The specification confirms this characterization by describing the advantages of the claimed system in terms of business outcomes, such as enabling new discount and fee structures recouping discount costs from merchants and improving the tracking and reconciliation of discounts and transaction costs, rather than in terms of any specific technical improvement to the computers or networks. Spec. ¶ 1, 2, 89–92, 99–101. The specification does not describe any specific technical improvement to network communication protocols, encryption, computer architecture or any new data structure that changes how the computer stores or processes information. Instead, it relies on generic computer-readable media, memory, processors, and databases. Spec. ¶¶ 26–32, 33, 35, 36, 40. Thus, any improvements described in the specification are improvements to how financial transactions, discounts, and settlement processes are allocated among merchants, issuers, and payment networks, not to the functioning of the underlying computer or networks.
The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea with a particular machine.
Although the claims recite specific hardware components (i.e., a multi payment channel electronic transaction settlement system comprising memory and one or more processors, a first payment channel of a payment network, a look-up table accessible to the one or more processors, and a second payment channel separate from the payment network), these components are recited at a high functional level and perform only their generic functions of receiving, transmitting, storing, and processing data. Spec. ¶¶ 26–32, 35, 36, 40. A machine is “particular” only when it imposes a meaningful limit on the claims scope. MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, any general-purpose computer or server, any conventional payment channel such as VISA®, any generic communication network such as ACH, and any standard database implemented as a look-up table would satisfy the claim’s hardware requirements, which confirms that the hardware components are generic rather than “particular.” Spec. ¶¶ 29, 30, 33. The specification describes each computer component using broad, open-ended language without restricting the claimed hardware to any particular design, configuration, or architecture. Spec. ¶¶ 26–32, 35, 36, 40.
The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional elements, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them with specificity beyond exemplary language or describes them as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. The specification’s own broad, exemplary characterization confirms that these components are not described in a manner that would impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 70 (“the terms computing entity, computer, entity, device, system, server, machine, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably may refer to, for example, one or more computers, computing entities, desktop computers, mobile phones, tablets, phablets, notebooks, laptops, distributed systems, input terminals, servers or server networks, blades, gateways, switches, processing devices, processing entities, set-top boxes, relays, routers, network access points, base stations, the like, and/or any combination of devices or entities adapted to perform the functions, operations, and/or processes described herein.”); ¶ 21 (“A fuel exchange (or any transaction) may be associated with an identifier, referred to as a fuel exchange identifier (or more generally, a transaction identifier), and metadata.”); ¶ 25 (“"purchaser" (or "fuel recipient") refers to any entity that enters into an exchange of value with a merchant … the purchaser computing entity includes any computing device configured to communicate with the remote computing entity.”); ¶ 26 (“A software component may be coded in any of a variety of programming languages.”); ¶ 29 (“a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium may include a floppy disk, flexible disk, hard disk, solid-state storage (SSS) (e.g., a solid state drive (SSD), solid state card (SSC), or solid state module (SSM)), enterprise flash drive, magnetic tape, or any other non-transitory magnetic medium, and/or the like. A nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium may also include a punch card, paper tape, optical mark sheet ( or any other physical medium with patterns of holes or other optically recognizable indicia), compact disc read only memory (CD-ROM), compact discrecordable (CD-R), compact disc-rewritable (CD-RW), digital versatile disc (DVD), Bluray disc (BD), any other non-transitory optical medium, and/or the like. Such a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium may also include read-only memory (ROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory (e.g., Serial, NAND, NOR, and/or the like), multimedia memory cards (MMC), secure digital (SD) memory cards, SmartMedia cards, CompactFlash (CF) cards, Memory Sticks, and/or the like. Further, a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium may also include conductive-bridging random access memory (CBRAM), phase-change random access memory (PRAM), ferroelectric random-access memory (FeRAM), non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM), magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM), resistive random-access memory (RRAM), Silicon-Oxide-Nitride-Oxide-Silicon memory (SONOS), floating junction gate random access memory (FJG RAM), Millipede memory, racetrack memory, and/or the like.”); ¶ 30 (any known volatile computer-readable storage medium); ¶ 35 (“the remote computing entity 101 can include a plurality of computing devices that together may include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource, and/or any other distributed computing arrangement.”); ¶ 40 (“discounts may be merchant specific 513 and may be associated with discount identifiers 106 that are usable for any transaction with the merchant”); ¶ 53 (“an instrument of exchange associated with a purchaser, purchaser account 104, and/or purchaser computing entity 111 may be any of a number of different instrument types,”); ¶ 55 (“the terms device, system, computing entity, entity, server, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably may refer to at least, for example, one or more computers, computing entities, mobile phones, tablets, phablets, watches, glasses, ear pieces, wristbands, wearable items/devices, fobs, other internet-of-things (loT) devices, and/or the like, and/or any combination of devices or entities adapted to perform the functions, operations, and/or processes described herein”); ¶ 56 (“the purchaser computing entity 111 may operate in accordance with any of a number of wireless communication standards and protocols”); ¶ 62 (“The user input interface can comprise any of input devices 120”); ¶ 63 (“any of a variety of wireless data transmission protocols”); ¶ 66 (“any two or more of the illustrative components of the architecture of Fig. 1 may be configured to communicate with one another … The networks 150, 160 may include, but are not limited to, any one or a combination of different types of suitable communications networks … any other suitable private and/or public networks. Further, the networks 150, 160 may have any suitable communication range … the networks 150 may include any type of medium ”); ¶ 67 (“any of the OSI layers used”); ¶¶ 76, 87 (“any other wired transmission protocol”); ¶ 80 (“any combination of devices or entities adapted to perform the functions, operations, and/or processes described herein”); ¶ 104 (“The payment data may comprise a payment account number/identifier and/or any additional data needed to authorize a transaction using the payment instrument 625.”); ¶ 33 (any exemplary and known payment channels such as “VISA®” and “ACH.”).
The generic processor, here, performs calculations (functions) and executes instructions that are programmed by software directed to the abstract idea. Spec. ¶ 69. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow, and whose directions are directed to the abstract idea.
Limitation A describes the processor and memory configured for performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception using a computer, merely adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception without imposing any meaningful technical limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Alternatively, the claim generically recites an effect of the abstract idea without specifying how the computer achieves that effect in any technically meaningful way. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 are not substantially different than Rep. Claim 1, recite the same abstract idea as Rep. Claim 1, and contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed for Rep. Claim 1. Therefore, Independent Claims 8 and 15 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as a whole, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements (i.e., a multi payment channel electronic transaction settlement system comprising memory and one or more processors, a first payment channel of a payment network, a look-up table accessible to the one or more processors, and a second payment channel separate from the payment network), are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure3. Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 35, 40, 53, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 76, 80, 87, 104, 119, Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
(1) A multi payment channel electronic transaction settlement system comprising memory and one or more processors is WRC in the financial technology field. Spec. ¶¶ 26–32, 33.
(2) A first payment channel of a payment network and a second payment channel separate from the payment network are WRC. Spec. ¶¶ 33, 34.
(3) a look-up table accessible to the one or more processors is WRC. Spec. ¶ 40.
The Specification further confirms that the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing data are normal, well-understood operations of generic computer systems, and the steps may be performed in any order or concurrently. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 35, 40, 53, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 76, 80, 87, 104, 119, Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited:
The combination of the additional elements is likewise WRC. A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(2). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification: a standard remote server 200 wit generic processors and memories communicating over known networks 150 and 160, using conventional APIs, and accessing ordinary data stress 1-2 to look-up data for processing transaction data, applying discounts, maintaining ledgers, and routing funds through known payment rails. Spec. ¶¶ 33–36, 40–42, 49, 69–73, 79, 81–83, 88, 91, 92. There is no indication that the combination of these elements operates in an unconventional manner or produces a result that is other than what would be expected from the generic application of these individual components.
Unlike BASCOM, where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location (an ISP server) rather than on individual end-user devices, Rep. Claim 1 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way. The claims instead recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular network architecture or internal data structure beyond conventional components. Spec. ¶¶ At the high level of generality recited, the combination is WRC. Any BASCOM argument fails because any non-conventional arrangement allegedly described in the specification is simply not recited in the claims. Spec. ¶¶ 3–9, 33–36, 40–42, 49, 91, 92. Rep. Claim 1 recites only the abstract steps without incorporating any specific technical details for how these elements are performed. A non-conventional arrangement that may be described in the specification but not actually claimed cannot supply the inventive concept at Step 2B. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, the abstract idea recited in claims cannot be improved by a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). No inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra.
Independent Claim 15 is a computer program product claim whose instructions cause a system to perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 8 is a method claim reciting steps that perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 8 and 15 add no additional elements beyond those of Rep. Claim 1 that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Independent Claims 8 and 15 also do not recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination with the elements of the independent claims. Each dependent claim incorporates all the limitations of its parent Independent Claim and therefore recites the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B, for the following reasons:
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. The “causing transfer” (transmitting) limitations (Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17), “receiving” and “transmitting” limitations (Claims 4, 11, 18), merely invoke computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). The “verifying” limitations (Claims 4, 11, 18), timing limitations (Claims 5, 12, 19) and “determining” limitations (Claims 7, 14, 21) are mental processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to perform the “verifying,” timing, or “determining” limitations. These limitations cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 6, 13, and 20 all recite “wherein” clauses that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: a point-of sale terminal (Claims 6, 13, 20). For the same reasoning as explained for the “memory” and “processor” in Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, supra, this additional element does not provide a practical application or inventive concept because it is amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–21 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 This guidance supersedes previous guidance memoranda, and is incorporated, with revisions, into Section 2106 of the MPEP. 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 ("All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance."); see also October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 2 (Oct. 17, 2019) (hereinafter, the "October 2019 Update") ("[A]ll USPTO personnel are expected to follow the guidance.")
2 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
Prosecution Insights