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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1, 3, 12 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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.
Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim 12 is drawn to a system, and claim(s) 19 is drawn to computer program product. As such, claims 1, 13, and 17 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to organizing ad hoc group and coordinating group-based financial transactions. Specifically, the claims recite creating, by group management circuitry, an ad hoc group digital representation, which is grouped within the concept of Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as group management circuitry, communications hardware, user interface circuitry, devices, apparatus, non-transitory computer ridable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the group management circuitry, communications hardware, user interface circuitry, devices, apparatus, non-transitory computer ridable medium
perform(s) the steps or functions of selecting, by organizer geolocation circuitry, an invitation region; causing transmission, by communications hardware, of an ad hoc group invitation to one or more devices associated with individuals within the invitation region, wherein the ad hoc group invitation includes the ad hoc group digital representation; receiving, by the communications hardware, response decisions from the one or more devices associated with the individuals within the invitation region; performing, by identity verification circuitry, a digital authentication operation to authenticate the one or more devices for which the response decisions indicate acceptance of the ad hoc group invitation; adding, by user interface circuitry, authenticated devices to the ad hoc group; and performing, by the group management circuitry, autonomous group operations. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a group management circuitry, communications hardware, user interface circuitry, devices, apparatus, non-transitory computer ridable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of organizing ad hoc group and coordinating group-based financial transactions. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the group management circuitry, communications hardware, user interface circuitry, devices, apparatus, non-transitory computer ridable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of selecting, by organizer geolocation circuitry, an invitation region; causing transmission, by communications hardware, of an ad hoc group invitation to one or more devices associated with individuals within the invitation region, wherein the ad hoc group invitation includes the ad hoc group digital representation; receiving, by the communications hardware, response decisions from the one or more devices associated with the individuals within the invitation region; performing, by identity verification circuitry, a digital authentication operation to authenticate the one or more devices for which the response decisions indicate acceptance of the ad hoc group invitation; adding, by user interface circuitry, authenticated devices to the ad hoc group; and performing, by the group management circuitry, autonomous group operations.. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of organizing ad hoc group and coordinating group-based financial transactions. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 20 further describe the abstract idea of organizing ad hoc group and coordinating group-based financial transactions. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, prong one), and further that the claims recite both a practical application (Step 2A, prong two) and "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
Response, the claims are directed to establishing and managing an ad hoc group, including inviting individuals, receiving responses, authenticating participants and performing group related operations. These activities are similar to organizing human activities. The additional limitation that uses authentication uses an mDL specifies the type of credentials used during the authentication step. However, the claim does not recite any technical details regarding how the mDL is generated, validated, transmitted or cryptographically verified. Rather, the mDL is used as an information credentials to confirm identity, which does not change the nature of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly amended claim 1 as amended is still considered to recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant asserts that the inclusion of MDL based authentication integrates the claimed subject matter into a practical application.
This argument is not persuasive, the claim does not recite specific improvement to authentication technology, device security or credential verification mechanism. The MDL is applied in its conventional capacity as a digital form of identification, and the authentication step is performed using generic identity circuit. The claim uses existing computer and identity technologies as tools to implement the group formation and management process, rather than improving the functioning of a computer or another technical filed. The inclusion of the mDL authentication does not limit the claim or change its focus from an abstract idea to a technical solution. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B, applicant contends that the amended claim recites significantly more than the judicial exception due to the use of mDL based authentication.
The claim does not recite any specialized processing of mDL or unconventional authentication techniques. Instead, the mDL is used as an informational credential to confirm identity. When considered in combination with the other claim elements, the mDL limitation does not add an inventive concept. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443