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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 04/23/2024 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1-19 have been elected herein by Applicant without traverse. Claim 20 is withdrawn herein. No claims have been amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. The rejection of pending claims 1-19 is hereby made non-final.
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.
9. Claims 1-19 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.” Claim(s) 1-19 are directed to a system, method, and computer readable medium for processing group payments, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2A (prongs 1 and 2) - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Limitation 1- initiating a web-based service in response to capturing validation data from a payment terminal or a point of sale device;
Limitation 2- presenting, via the web-based service, a plurality of digital payment sources to a user via a display of a peripheral device;
Limitation 3- receiving a selection, via a user input of the peripheral device, of an initial digital payment source of the plurality of digital payment sources to process a transaction associated with the validation data;
Limitation 4- receiving a determination by a logic layer of the web-based service whether the selected initial digital payment source is associated with a minimum threshold of user authentication criteria; and
Limitation 5- if the minimum threshold of user authentication criteria is not satisfied, i) obtaining user authentication data associated with one or more secondary digital payment sources of the plurality of digital payment sources and associating the user authentication data with the initial digital payment source; or ii) prompting the user to perform one or more authentication actions.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “the key question is ‘whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., No. 2016-2254 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) (referring to Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., Appeal No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “In this regard, [examiners] must articulate with specificity what the claims are directed to.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that “[a]dding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 885 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Importantly, “[w]e [] assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]oundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018) citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 *2013).
Furthermore, “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). “The fact that an identifier [or utilization of the underlying abstract idea] can be used to make a process more efficient . . . does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.” Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1728 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017). Importantly, the CAFC “ha[s] held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity, Appeal No. 2017-1147 (Fed. Cir. 2017) citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1355.
Here, the examiner finds the claims are not directed to “an improvement to computer technology," such as found in Enfish, but to the abstract idea itself.1 Examiners have been instructed to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract. Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following cases (and their associated judicial descriptor(s)) that relate to concepts similar to the claimed concepts:
Versata2(precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be using organizational and product group hierarchies to determine a price, where this was found to be a method of organizing human activity;
Downing3 (non-precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be the concept of personal management, resource planning, and forecasting including a “resource planning forecast product” that collects and analyzes “non-business or business information relative to the end user,” where this was found to be a method of organizing human activity; and
SAP Inc. v. InvestPic4 (precedential—ineligible) – abstract idea found to be selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, where this was found to be a certain method of organizing human activity.
As indicated above, the claims are directed to similar concepts.5 Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea. Similar to the case law cited above, the examiner finds the abstract idea to include at least the judicial descriptor(s) of: certain methods of organizing human activity.6
Regarding preemption, the examiner notes that “[w]hile preemption may signal ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this [application], preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
“[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, ‘we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?’” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites “significantly more” than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. “As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo[] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo].” Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, “[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two.” West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database’ . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement”; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any “additional elements” in the claims that constitute “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those “additional features” must be more than “well understood, routine, conventional activity.” See Alice. To note, “under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered . . . abstract idea[] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “inventive concept” can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.”)(emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims ‘so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.’)”). Furthermore, “[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes “an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. 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).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
Additional Element 1 – a payment terminal;
Additional Element 2 – a peripheral device;
Additional Element 3 – a point of sale device;
In sum, the examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. InvestPic, “[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.” Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter. Claims 2-19 suffer from similar deficiencies as the similarly recited claim and the claim from which they depend, and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of the independent claims they depend therefrom.
Unless otherwise noted below, the dependent claims are directed to the identified abstract idea above. Similar to the independent claim(s) above, the examiner refers to generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood, and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of the independent claims they depend therefrom.
For the reasons stated, the examiner does not find the claims to recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chatterjee (US 2012/0310826).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a system for authenticating a transaction, comprising: a payment terminal or point of sale device configured to receive transaction information related to the transaction and display validation data (see at least paragraph [0063] to Chatterjee); and a peripheral device configured to: capture validation data from the payment terminal or point of sale device; initiate a web-based service in response to capturing validation data from the payment terminal or the point of sale device (see at least paragraph [0098] to Chatterjee); present, via the web-based service, a plurality of digital payment sources to a user via a display of the peripheral device; receive a selection, via a user input of the peripheral device, of an initial digital payment source of the plurality of digital payment sources to process a transaction associated with the validation data (see at least paragraph [0102] to Chatterjee); in response to receipt of the selection, receive a determination by a logic layer of the web-based service whether the selected initial digital payment source is associated with a minimum threshold of user authentication criteria (see at least paragraph [0087] to Chatterjee); and if the minimum threshold of user authentication criteria is not satisfied, i) obtain user authentication data associated with one or more secondary digital payment sources of the plurality of digital payment sources and associating the user authentication data with the initial digital payment source; or ii) prompting the user to perform one or more authentication actions(see at least paragraph [0088] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the transaction includes a request to process a transaction value above a predetermined threshold value (see at least paragraph [0084] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more digital payment sources include one or more crypto-wallets and/or one or more digital currency exchange accounts or applications (see at least paragraph [0035] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising at least one remote server or cloud- based storage device having a memory, wherein if the minimum threshold of user authentication is satisfied, the peripheral device and a payment processor are configured process the transaction, and the web-based service stores, via the memory, a transaction instance, wherein the transaction instance includes at least one of i) a transaction identification (ID), ii) identification data related to the plurality of digital payment source, and iii) meta data related to an identity of the user (see at least paragraph [0039] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the memory operates to form a record keeping environment for all transactions from the user and includes a transaction number that is unique to the payment processor (see at least paragraph [0022] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the memory operates to bind data related to hardware of the peripheral device to the transaction instance (see at least paragraph [0035] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the logic layer of the web-based service returns a binary result indicating whether the minimum threshold of user authentication has been met (see at least paragraph [0068] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the validation data is bar code or quick response (QR) code, the peripheral device comprises at least one camera, and the capturing of the validation data utilizes the at least one camera (see at least paragraph [0039] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the logic layer, via at least one application program interface (API), is configured to retrieve data related to at least one of i) device hardware of the peripheral device, ii) which digital payment source of the plurality of digital payment sources has been selected, iii) and whether the peripheral device has data stored for secondary digital payment sources of the one or more digital payment sources (see at least paragraph [0040] to Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the logic layer, via at least one application program interface (API) (see at least paragraph [0040] to Chatterjee), is configured to retrieve ancillary authentication data selected from i) user faceprint data, ii) user fingerprint data, iii) a user's personal identification number (PIN), iv) a media access control address (MAC), or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph [0045] to Chatterjee).
Claims 11-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Examiner’s Note:
All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2106 II C. The following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scopeof the claimed invention. See MPEP 2106 II C. Language in a method claim that states only the intended use or intended result•(e.g., "for---------------________"), but the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim. Language in a system claim that states only the intended use or intended result (e.g., "for_____"), but does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. If the prior art reference is structurally capable of performing the intended use of the claimed invention, it meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as "if, may, might, can, or could”, contain optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as "wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.USPTO personnel should begin claim analysis by identifying and evaluating each claim limitation. For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed. For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials. Product claims are claims that are directed to machines, manufactures or compositions of matter. See MPEP § 2106 II C. The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional, but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:(A) statements of intended use or field of use,(B) "adapted to" , “configured to", or "adapted for" clauses,(C) "wherein" clauses, or(D) "whereby" clauses.See MPEP § 2106 II C
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 See Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016) (“The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independent abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”).
2 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(The court also stated that “[u]sing organizational and product group hierarchies to determine a price is an abstract idea that has no particular concrete or tangible form or application. It is a building block, a basic conceptual framework for organizing information.”).
3 Appeal No 2018-1795 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
4 Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 “[The examiner] need not define the outer limits of ‘abstract idea,’ or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea—and hence require stage two analysis under § 101.” Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016).
6 As stated in the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.”
Prosecution Insights