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 the Application
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 28-May-2024. No priority has been claimed in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of the effective filing date as the priority date.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1 and 10, the claims recite “a … method for assessing data related to transactions initiated by users, the method comprising:
accessing transaction data representative of a plurality of transactions to an account, each of the transactions involving a user;
for each of the plurality of transactions:
calculating, by [an entity], an environmental score based on environmental impact of the transaction;
calculating, by the [entity], a social score, based on social impact of the transaction;
calculating, by the [entity], a governance score, based on transparency and/or compliance as to a payment practice of the transaction, where the governance score is specific to governance impact of the transaction; and
aggregating, by the [entity], the environmental score, the social score and the governance score into an impact score; and
combining, by the [entity], the impact scores for the plurality of transactions into a total impact score for the account; and
notifying, through [communications], the user of the total impact score failing to meet one or more thresholds and prompting, based on the total impact score failing to meet the one or more thresholds, the user to improve the total impact score, …”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. computing device, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. The method recited above is a process of accessing and analyzing data associated with the transaction, calculating scores associated with the transaction, aggregating and combining the scores, providing the total score, comparing the score to a threshold, and notifying the user on to improve the score.
All these steps recited by the claims can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Although the claim may recite using a computing device to access, calculate, aggregate, compare, and provide data, performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Additionally, the claims recite a process of data analysis associated with the transaction, as disclosed by Specification:
[0012] “Uniquely, the systems and methods herein enable realization of the impact of certain types of payment transactions in connection with certain assessments (e.g., ESG assessments, etc.), and promote one or more types of payment transactions (i.e., frictionless payments) in a manner to improve performance according to the assessments”
[0051] “Further, in general when there is insufficient use of frictionless payment, or the total impact score fails to satisfy the one or more thresholds, the program host 116 is further configured to promote frictionless payment, with the account, to the user 112. That is, the program host 116 is configured to notify the user 112 of the total impact score being unsatisfactory and the potential improvement or benefits of the total impact score through use of frictionless payment options for performing transactions to the account of the user 112 (e.g., reduced carbon footprint, enhanced user experience, streamlined governance, etc.). The improvement or benefits may be general for transactions, or specific to one or more of the transactions included in the transaction data for the account of the user 112. In addition, the improvement based on frictionless payment may be presented in a manner specific to the different scores, such as, for example, reduced carbon footprint, enhanced user experience, and/or streamlined governance practice, etc.”
The method of analyzing transaction data to promote certain type of payment transactions to the user is fundamental economic principles or practices, which is under certain methods of organizing human activities.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “computer”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “processor” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, and are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: access data, calculate data, aggregate data, notify data, and provide data, as disclosed by Specification:
[0018] “As shown in FIG. 1, the user 112 is also associated with the communication device 114. The communication device 114 may include a mobile device, such as, for example, a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, or an immobile device, such as, for example, a personal computer, a desktop, a workstation, etc.”
[0059] “FIG. 2 illustrates an example computing device 200 that can be used in the system 100. The computing device 200 may include, for example, one or more servers, workstations, personal computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, PDAs, POS devices, etc.”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to access, calculate, aggregate, or provide data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite the steps of “access data”, “calculate data”, “aggregate data”, “combine data”, and “provide data”. These steps are merely gathering data, manipulating data, and providing data using the generic computer system as disclosed above, wherein adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g. mere data gathering and/or data manipulation) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Here, the steps of accessing and calculating data to be used in the claimed process are incidental to the primary process of data analysis. 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 claims also recite an additional element of “wallet application at a communication device” and “NFC-based contactless payment”, as disclosed “notifying, through a wallet application at a communication device of the user, the user of the total impact score failing to meet one or more thresholds and prompting, based on the total impact score failing to meet the one or more thresholds, the user to improve the total impact score, through use of near-field communication-based (NFC-based) contactless payment with the account”. As similarly discussed above, these additional elements are recited at a mere “apply it” level to implement the abstract idea of notifying the user regarding the analyzed transaction data, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. 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 claims do 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, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g. mere data gathering and/or data manipulation) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 11 recite “wherein calculating the environmental score includes assessing electricity usage, carbon emission data, and ethical considerations relevant to the transaction; and wherein calculating the social score includes evaluating industry-specific metrics, ethical data, and transaction purpose associated with the transaction; and wherein calculating the governance score involves considering industry-specific data and supply chain information impacting the transaction.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 12 recite “wherein aggregating the environmental score, the social score and the governance score into the impact score for the transaction includes summing the environmental score, the social score and the governance score.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “wherein combining the impact scores into the total impact score includes averaging the impact scores for the plurality of transactions.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 14 recite “further comprising determining, by the computing device, that the total impact score fails to meet the one or more thresholds.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “wherein notifying the user includes posting the total impact score to an interface at a communication device of the user.” The claims provide additional element of an interface at a communication device, which is merely applied to implement the abstract idea (e.g. provide data to notify user), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-6 and 11-15, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6 to 10, filed 28-January-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, see pages 6 to 8, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, considering the claims without the additional elements, the method of calculating scores, aggregating scores, and notifying the user can still be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(III)(A)) and performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(III)(C)). Additionally, the invention is towards analyzing transaction data, and notifying the user with respect to the assessment of transaction data, as disclosed by Specification [0012] and [0051]. The method of analyzing transaction data to promote certain type of payment transactions to the user is fundamental economic principles or practices, which is under certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant contends, see pages 8 to 9, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements are mere generic computer components merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements, such as the wallet application or NFC-based contactless payment, are merely applied at a basic level (e.g. notify user through application, use NFC-based contactless payment, etc.). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to access, calculate, aggregate, or provide data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant contends, see pages 9 to 10, that the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claims, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. For example, there is no specific improvement, alteration, change, or modification to the NFC technology, but the claims recite to merely apply the NFC technology. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g. mere data gathering and/or data manipulation) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 to 14, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Morsi (US 20220058180 A1) discloses [0051] “In another embodiment, server 302 receives the transactions from one or more of the nodes 306 prior to the nodes 306 reaching consensus that a particular transaction is valid or the inclusion of the transaction in the digital distributed ledger. It should be appreciated that valid refers to whether the transaction is in compliance with the established governance rules in effect on the distributed ledger system, for example, the sender has the amount of currency being sent (bitcoin, XRP, Ethereum, USD, etc.)”;
BOLIGNANO et al. (US 20200314145 A1) discloses [0031] “In some embodiments, there is a set of default governance requirements supported by the intent-based governance service relevant to their security, compliance, and business needs of an enterprise. Users of the intent-based governance service can deploy the default governance requirements, configure requirements based on their enterprise-specific scenarios, or opt-out of the governance requirements that are not applicable to their organization. Each governance requirement is mapped to a compliance (payment card industry (PCI)/Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRamp)), security (such as encrypt using 256-bit keys), and/or business requirement (such as no cross-account access to financial accounts)”;
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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights