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 . Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/10/26 are acceptable and have been entered.
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, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process), claim 9 to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 16 to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 9, and 16 is (claim 1 being representative):
granting access to the customer’s card subscription payment details data;
[retrieving and displaying] a list of merchants with active subscriptions tied to the customer’s card to cancel a corresponding active subscription;
[allowing] cancellation of the corresponding active subscription;
receiving, in response to integrating, an input to select a merchant associated with the corresponding active subscription the customer wants to cancel; and
cancelling, in response to receiving the input, the corresponding active subscription associated with the selected merchant,
wherein, when cancellation fails due to inability to reach the merchant, [implementing] a rule or token to block future payments from the customer card for the merchant.
The abstract idea steps italicized above describe a cancelation process associated with an active subscription, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions pertaining to a cancelation process associated with an active subscription, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite the following additional elements, with slight variations in language: providing a database that stores a customer’s card subscription payment details data associated with online subscriptions with one or more merchants; from the database to a mobile operating system embedded within a mobile device of the customer; calling, in response to granting the access, a first application programming interface received from the mobile operating system; onto a graphical user interface within the customers’ mobile device; calling, in response to granting the access, a second application programming interface received from the mobile operating system; via the graphical user interface; integrating the customer's mobile device to a third party subscription cancellation provider platform via a platform-, language-, and cloud-agnostic subscription cancellation module; utilizing the third party subscription cancellation provider platform.
Claim 9 also recites the following additional elements: a processor; a memory operatively connected to the processor; via a communication interface; the memory storing computer readable instructions.
Claim 16 also recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions; a processor.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0050]-[0064] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 17, in addition to narrowing the abstract idea above with additional abstract steps and/or information, also recite further additional elements (merchant website; Appstore). Similar to above, these generic computing elements are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea in an “apply it” manner, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Dependent claims 3-4, 11-12, and 18-19, in addition to narrowing the abstract idea above with additional abstract steps and/or information, also recite further additional elements (mobile wallet). Similar to above, these generic computing elements are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea in an “apply it” manner, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Dependent claims 5, 13, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea above with additional abstract steps and/or information. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Dependent claims 6 and 14, in addition to narrowing the abstract idea above with additional abstract steps and/or information, also recite further additional elements (calling, in response to the cancelled workflow, a third application programming interface received from the mobile operating system). Similar to above, these generic computing elements are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea in an “apply it” manner, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 2/10/26 have been fully considered. Examiner’s response follows, with applicant’s headings and page numbers used for consistency.
Objection to the Drawings; Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
Applicant is thanked for their amendments to the drawings and claims, which overcome the previous objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b). These have been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant offers (brackets indicate references to amended claim that have been omitted for brevity):
[…]
Applicant respectfully submits that the above-noted amendment evidence that each of the independent claims as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea, integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the above-noted amendment further evidence that each of the independent claims recites elements that are significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The claims, as amended, are directed to a technological solution to a technical problem, not an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite a platform-, cloud-, and language-agnostic subscription cancellation module (SCM) that orchestrates subscription cancellation across mobile operating systems, card providers, and third-party platforms, thereby addressing the technical problem of inconsistent and error-prone subscription cancellation across heterogeneous systems (see, e.g., 0006, 0063, 0097-0099 of the instant specification). The SCM implements technological steps, including:
[…]
These steps produce concrete technological improvements, including automated and secure management of subscription data, cross-platform orchestration without manual user intervention, prevention of errors and repeated charges, and enhanced efficiency in subscription management (see, e.g., 0005-0006, 00106-00115, 00118 of the instant specification).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an improvement in the technological operation of computers and mobile devices, and the §101 rejection should be withdrawn.
While well taken, examiner remains unpersuaded. Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, when offering remarks such as: “These steps produce concrete technological improvements, including automated and secure management of subscription data, cross-platform orchestration without manual user intervention, prevention of errors and repeated charges, and enhanced efficiency in subscription management.” Here, examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea (claim 1 being representative):
granting access to the customer’s card subscription payment details data;
[retrieving and displaying] a list of merchants with active subscriptions tied to the customer’s card to cancel a corresponding active subscription;
[allowing] cancellation of the corresponding active subscription;
receiving, in response to integrating, an input to select a merchant associated with the corresponding active subscription the customer wants to cancel; and
cancelling, in response to receiving the input, the corresponding active subscription associated with the selected merchant,
wherein, when cancellation fails due to inability to reach the merchant, [implementing] a rule or token to block future payments from the customer card for the merchant.
The additional elements (storing in a database, calling API(s), a platform-, language-, and cloud-agnostic subscription cancellation module, etc.), which are considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, serve to merely facilitate the tasks of said abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a network-enabled computing system. Accordingly, this does not represent an improvement to technology, as applicant suggests.
For these reasons, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s amendments and clarifying remarks are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. In particular, in Evans, considered the closest prior art and cited previously, cancellation is done either by the provider's own system or directly via the merchant's website; there is no disclosure of integrating the user device with a distinct “third party subscription cancellation provider platform” that is separate from both the bank and the merchant. Evans instead teaches a first-party banking platform with configuration parameters about merchants, not an independent third-party cancellation service used across merchants.
Further, the amended claim requires that, upon the defined failure condition, the platform-, language-, and cloud-agnostic subscription cancellation module “implements a rule or token to block future payments from the customer card for the merchant. Fakhraie, considered the closest prior art and cited previously, merely states that interfaces allow the user to stop or block subsequent payments to a payee from a particular account/payment vehicle. It does not disclose: that a subscription cancellation module is implementing the block, that the block is implemented via a specific rule or token, or that this action is taken automatically in response to a failed cancellation attempt.
Fakhraie is focused generally on a "control tower" portal that lets a user centrally manage access permissions and recurring payments, not on a specialized, platform-agnostic subscription-cancellation module that programmatically generates a payment-network rule/token upon a failed cancellation.
Accordingly, the prior art rejections are withdrawn. In an updated search, examiner identified the following references, which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor, stop short of the specificity required by the amended claim:
US 20120265683, which teaches in [0043]: Turning to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 6, an authorization request 116 is submitted to network 20, which then considers whether the payment associated with the request is a recurring payment (118). If the submitted payment is identified as a recurring payment, then the process continues at step 120 as discussed hereinabove with respect to step 76 in FIG. 3. However, if the payment associated with authorization request 116 is not identified as a recurring payment, then network 20 considers whether the issuing bank is an issuer participant (122). If the issuing bank is not an issuer participant, then the transaction is continued at step 124 in ordinary fashion. If the issuing bank is an issuer participant, then network 20 determines whether the data associated with the proposed charge defined in the authorization request matches the RAC blocking criteria (126). This step is indicated at 128, and is accomplished by accessing RPCS file 54.
US 20130080318, which teaches in [0091]: With reference to FIG. 8, in related aspects, the method 700 may further involve cancelling future cardholder charges, in response to the transaction being part of a recurring charge (block 750). In further related aspects, the notification may include at least one of a case ID, a merchant ID, or a notification ID (block 760). In yet further related aspects, the method 700 may further involve acknowledging the notification, in response to receiving the notification (block 770). Acknowledging may involve updating a case status for the transaction (block 772). The method 700 may further involve updating the case status to indicate resolution of the transaction, in response to resolution of the transaction (block 774).
US 20190205882, which teaches in [0018]: Broadly characterized, the present invention relates to systems and methods for updating a card-not-present account-on-file transaction blocking service (CNPBS) database to block or prevent future transactions. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments provide a system and computer-implemented method for automating a process to identify a chargeback where the chargeback reason code indicates the chargeback is because of a “cancelled recurring payment.” In one example embodiment, a CNPBS update system or module is configured for use with a payment card processing network such as, for example, an interchange network. The CNPBS update module includes a memory device and a processor in communication with the memory device and is programmed to communicate with the interchange network to receive a chargeback message from issuers.
These references, whether viewed alone or in combination, fall short of the specificity required by the claim, particularly (claim 1 being representative):
integrating the customer's mobile device to a third party subscription cancellation provider platform via a platform-, language-, and cloud-agnostic subscription cancellation module;
[…]
cancelling, in response to receiving the input, the corresponding active subscription associated with the selected merchant utilizing the third party subscription cancellation provider platform,
wherein, when cancellation fails due to inability to reach the merchant, the platform-, language-, and cloud-agnostic subscription cancellation module implements a rule or token to block future payments from the customer card for the merchant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120265683, which teaches in [0043]: Turning to the first embodiment shown in FIG. 6, an authorization request 116 is submitted to network 20, which then considers whether the payment associated with the request is a recurring payment (118). If the submitted payment is identified as a recurring payment, then the process continues at step 120 as discussed hereinabove with respect to step 76 in FIG. 3. However, if the payment associated with authorization request 116 is not identified as a recurring payment, then network 20 considers whether the issuing bank is an issuer participant (122). If the issuing bank is not an issuer participant, then the transaction is continued at step 124 in ordinary fashion. If the issuing bank is an issuer participant, then network 20 determines whether the data associated with the proposed charge defined in the authorization request matches the RAC blocking criteria (126). This step is indicated at 128, and is accomplished by accessing RPCS file 54.
US 20130080318, which teaches in [0091]: With reference to FIG. 8, in related aspects, the method 700 may further involve cancelling future cardholder charges, in response to the transaction being part of a recurring charge (block 750). In further related aspects, the notification may include at least one of a case ID, a merchant ID, or a notification ID (block 760). In yet further related aspects, the method 700 may further involve acknowledging the notification, in response to receiving the notification (block 770). Acknowledging may involve updating a case status for the transaction (block 772). The method 700 may further involve updating the case status to indicate resolution of the transaction, in response to resolution of the transaction (block 774).
US 20190205882, which teaches in [0018]: Broadly characterized, the present invention relates to systems and methods for updating a card-not-present account-on-file transaction blocking service (CNPBS) database to block or prevent future transactions. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments provide a system and computer-implemented method for automating a process to identify a chargeback where the chargeback reason code indicates the chargeback is because of a “cancelled recurring payment.” In one example embodiment, a CNPBS update system or module is configured for use with a payment card processing network such as, for example, an interchange network. The CNPBS update module includes a memory device and a processor in communication with the memory device and is programmed to communicate with the interchange network to receive a chargeback message from issuers.
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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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 MONFELDT can be reached at (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 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629