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 .
Application Status
This application is a continuation (CON) of 18/157,495 or US Patent12,020,260 which is a continuation (CON) of 15/385,277 or US Patent 11,562,370.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/27/26 has been entered.
Claims amended:
Independent claims: 1, 8, and 15.
Dep. claims: 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
(1) System1: 1-7, and
(2) Method1: 8-14, and
(2) CRSM1: 15-20.
All appear to have similar scope and will be examined together.
As of 1/27/26, independent system claim 1 is as followed:
(currently amended) An analytics computing system in communication with at least one point-of-sale (POS) device over a payment processing network, the analytics computing system comprising:
[I] the payment processing network configured to exchange information formatted in a proprietary communications standard between the at least one POS device, an analytics computing device and a payment processor,
[II] the payment processor configured to process payment transactions;
[III] the analytics computing device comprising at least one processor, and
[IV] at least one memory device in operable electronic communication with the analytics computing device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
[1] generate a database table having a plurality of partitions including tip data associated with a plurality of users, wherein the tip data is generated by the at least one processor by (i) comparing, by the at least one processor, collected tip data retrieved from transaction data associated with transactions initiated by each of the plurality of users with a plurality of different service providers over a period of time, each of the plurality of different service providers located in one of a plurality of geographic areas and belonging to one of a plurality of industries, and (ii) computing, by the at least one processor for each user, an average tip amount based on an absolute scale with respect to each of the plurality of different service providers and based on an analysis of the collected tip data for that user and corresponding initial transaction data for the transactions initiated by that user;
[2] in response to initiation of a current transaction by a user of the plurality of users at one of the at least one POS device associated with a service provider of the plurality of different service providers located in a geographic area of the plurality of geographic areas and belonging to an industry of the plurality of industries, receive current transaction data associated with the current transaction;
[3] compute, in real-time, i) a current tip amount for the current transaction, and ii) a corresponding current tip percentage by comparing the current tip amount to an initial transaction total for the current transaction;
[4] access the generated database table to retrieve, by performing a lookup within the database using at least the geographic area, the industry, and an account identifier associated with the user, the average tip amount for the user, wherein the retrieved average tip amount for the user is associated with the geographic area and the industry;
[5] in response to accessing the generated database table, determine a threshold range of past tip percentages for tips provided by the user to service providers located in the geographic area and belonging to the industry;
[6] compare, in real-time, the computed current tip percentage for the current transaction to the determined threshold range;
[7] in response to determining that the computed current tip percentage is outside the determined threshold range, generate, in real-time with respect to the initiation of the current transaction, an alert based on the comparison, the alert generated in a computer format that is readable and displayable by an electronic device associated with the service provider; and
[8] transmit, over an electronic network different from the payment processing network and in real-time with respect to the initiation of the current transaction, the alert to the electronic device associated with the service provider, the alert notifying a representative of the service provider that the user is satisfied or dissatisfied while the user is at the service provider.
Note: for referential purpose, numbers [I]-[8] are added at the beginning of each element and step.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,562,370. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because steps [1]-[8] of current claimed application are similar to the steps [1] of “receiving…”, [6] of “calculating…a tip amount”, [7] “comparing … to a threshold range”, [8] “generating … alert”, and [9] “transmit … alert”, of US Patent 11,562,370. The steps of generating a database table and accessing the database for is inherently included in the cited patent for receiving the data for calculating the past tip amounts and generating customer gratuity analytics.
PNG
media_image1.png
673
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
797
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,020,260. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because steps [1]-[8] of current claimed application are similar to the steps [1] “generating gratuity analytics…”, [2] “receiving current transaction,..”, [3] calculate … a current tip amount…”, [4] “determine a threshold range…”, [5] “compare …”, [6] “generate alert”, and [8] “transmit … alert..”.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim category:
1) System1 (machine): 1-7, and
2) Method1 (process): 8-14, and
3) ntCRM (article): 15-20.
Analysis of Step 1:
Claims 1-7, are directed to an analytics computing system for evaluating a tip giving for service performed to determine the service effectiveness by analyzing/ comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. An alert is sent to the merchant if the service performance is outside of target based on the gratuity comparison. (Step 1:Yes).
Claims 8-14, are directed to a computer-implemented method for evaluating a tip giving to determine service performance by analyzing / comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. An alert is sent to the merchant if the service performance is outside of target based on the gratuity comparison. (Step 1:Yes).
Claims 15-20, are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions when executed by an analytics computing device cause the processor to implement a method for evaluating a tip giving for service performed to determine the service effectiveness by analyzing/ comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. An alert is sent to the merchant if the service performance is outside of target based on the gratuity comparison. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis of Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea for evaluating a tip giving for service performed to determine the service effectiveness by analyzing/ comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. The steps for calculating the current tip percentages for the current transaction to the determined threshold rage is considered as generating mathematical relationships (formulas). An alert is sent to the merchant if the merchant performance is outside of target based on the gratuity comparison. These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for evaluation of a project communication means and generating a prediction outcome of the project based on the communication means using a model. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
B. Analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for evaluating a tip giving for service performed to determine the service effectiveness by analyzing/ comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. An alert is sent to the merchant if the service performance is outside of target based on the gratuity comparison.
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] generate a database table (data). Data storage/relationship.
[2] receive current transaction data (data). Data gathering,
insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
[3] compute a tip amount (data). Business activity/Mathematical relationship.
[4] access the database table (data) Data gathering, IE-SA.
[5] determine a threshold range of past tip. Evaluate/analysis/Mathematical relationship.
[6] compare current tip … threshold range. Evaluate/analysis/compare.
[7] generate… alert (data). Mental step/observe/notice.
[8a] transmit … alert (data). Data transmitting, Insignificant Extra-solution activity (IESA).
[8b] notifying (data) a representative. Data transmitting, IESA.
As shown above, steps [1], [2], [4], [7], [8a] and [8b] are mere data gathering, data generation, and transmit data which are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [3], [5] and [6] are mathematical relationships or mathematical formulas for evaluating the current tip giving amount per service and comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. The additional computer elements of (1) database for storing data, (2) a processing unit, (3) a memory, and (4) and computer instructions for carrying out the steps, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. It merely uses a model for comparing gratuity (tip) amounts between various similar business transactions and generate a prediction outcome result. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 (e.g., business activities, and mathematical relationships) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Analysis of Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[8] cited above.
As shown above, steps [1], [2], [4], [7], [8a] and [8b] are mere data gathering, data generation, and transmit data which are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [3], [5] and [6] are mathematical relationships or mathematical formulas for evaluating the current tip giving amount per service and comparing the given tip amount to previous tip amount range of similar service and location. The additional computer elements of (1) database for storing data, (2) a processing unit, (3) a memory, and (4) and computer instructions for carrying out the steps, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
The additional computer elements of (1) database for storing data, (2) a processing unit, (3) a memory, and (4) and computer instructions for carrying out the steps, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions. These steps appear to be well known features of a model for prediction an outcome of a merchant performance using gratuity (tip) information by comparing the tip amount using a generic computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements as shown in steps [3], [5] and [6] when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) of prediction of a merchant performance by comparing current tip amount to previous tip amount profile. Mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions, collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying result (data) which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification [0059-0063] and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the calculated current tip amount, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis of the calculated tip amount, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the calculated current tip amount parameter, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis of the calculated tip amount, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 3 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the transaction data parameters, this further limits the abstract idea of the transaction data without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 4 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the matched authorization messages for transaction parameters, this further limits the abstract idea of the transaction parameters without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the outputted of the predicted satisfaction score value on a display and display features, these further limits the abstract idea of the displayed data, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 6 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the calculated average tip amount parameter, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis of the calculated average tip amount, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting Rejection: maintained.
The examiner acknowledge applicant’s comment that a terminal disclaimer will be filed to obviate the rejection when it’s the last remaining rejection in the application.
101 Rejection:
Applicant’s comment on pages 13-14 that the claim do not fall within the methods of organizing human activities are not persuasive because as cited above:
[3] compute a tip amount (data). Business activity/Mathematical relationship.
[5] determine a threshold range of past tip. Evaluate/analysis/Mathematical relationship.
[6] compare current tip … threshold range. Evaluate/analysis/compare.
The step of “computing a tip amount” is a business activity, sales activities or business relation and this falls under method of organizing human activities.
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
2) Applicant’s comment on page 14, middle paragraph, is not persuasive because the database structure appears to be conventional structure and the data monitoring is conventional. The feature “low-latency network transmission” is not in the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
170
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3) Applicant’s comment on page 15, middle paragraph, is not persuasive because the database partitions structure appears to be conventional structure and the data monitoring and transmission are conventional techniques.
PNG
media_image4.png
238
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4) Applicant’s comments on page 17, first paragraph, with respect to the benefits of the claimed system are subjective since there are no evidence of that the claimed system is more accurate, unaltered, and expeditiously delivered. No evidence to show that the “Gratuity Analytics Computing Device” operates better, faster, or more efficient.
5) Applicant’s comment on pages 17-18 are noted but they not found to be persuasive. The benefits generated appear to be due to computer automation of a manual processes for determining the current tip percentage for the current transaction to the determined threshold range, and advantage due to computer automation does not pass the subject matter eligibility test.
4) Applicant’s comment on pages 18-19 that the “combination of cited elements” are qualified as “being significantly more” is not persuasive for the same reasons cited above.
[3] compute a tip amount (data). Business activity/Mathematical relationship.
[5] determine a threshold range of past tip. Evaluate/analysis/Mathematical relationship.
[6] compare current tip … threshold range. Evaluate/analysis/compare.
These appear to be conventional steps for analyzing a how well a service is performed based on the tip given for the service. As shown above, steps [1], [2], [4], [7], [8a] and [8b] are mere data gathering, data generation, and transmit data which are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Prior Art Rejections
3) 103 Rejection:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method/article/ and a system for generating gratuity analytics for a plurality of customer transactions of a customer at a plurality of service providers in a same merchant category, the plurality of customer transactions being processed within a date range, the method implemented by a gratuity analytics computing device including at least one processor and a memory, the gratuity analytics computing device in communication with i) at least one point-of-sale (POS) device associated with at least one service provider of the plurality of service providers over an interchange network and ii) a payment processor over the interchange network, the payment processor configured to process transactions, is neither anticipated by, nor obvious in view of,
Names Publications:
(1) VENKATESH et al. Pub. US 2016/ 0.350.769, and
(2) STEKKELPAK et al. Pub. US 2014/ 0.372.284, and
(3) FRANK et al., PGP 2016/0.170.998.
since claimed invention, which teaches: steps [3]-[6] cited above, which references neither disclose nor suggest.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 6:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights