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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 was filed after the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits but before an action that closes prosecution in this application. The IDS is accompanied with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claims filed 12/10/2025 have been entered.
Claims 41-49, 51-55, 57-58, and 81-84 are pending.
Claims 41, 51, and 83 are independent.
Claims 41, 47, 49, 51, and 57 are currently amended.
Claims 81-84 are new.
Claims 42-46, 48, 52-55, and 58 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
The prior rejection of claims 41, 51, and 61, and their dependent claims, are withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 41-49, 51-55, 57-58, and 81-84 stand rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 41, 51, and 83, Applicant argues that the claims do not correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, Applicant argues that claim 51 recites an apparatus receiving a set of preferences corresponding to a digital wallet profile and storing the set of preferences in a database, wherein the database is stored in the at least one memory of the apparatus and the database comprises the digital wallet profile; the apparatus storing trip information in the database stored in the at least one memory of the apparatus; and that the apparatus then determines that a second payment request relates to a trip based, at least in part, on accessing the database comprising the trip information stored in the at least one memory and accessing the same database comprising the set of preferences stored in the at least one memory.
The argument is not persuasive. The claims have been amended to include limitations drawn to receiving a set of preferences correspond to a profile and determining that a second payment request relates to a trip based at least in part, on accessing stored trip information. These limitations further describe the abstract idea but do not render it any less abstract. As such, the claims are still deemed to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility framework. With regards to Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, the additional elements drawn to the use of a digital profile and memory/database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor do they provide significantly more under Step 2B.
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 41-49, 51-55, 57-58, and 81-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 41-49, 51-55, 57-58, and 81-84 are directed to a method (process), apparatus (machine) and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 41 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 51 and independent method claim 83. Claim 41 recites the limitations of:
41. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving a set of preferences corresponding to a digital wallet profile, wherein a first preference of the set of preferences corresponds to a first tipping percentage for a first transaction type and a second preference of the set of preferences corresponds to a second tipping percentage for a second transaction type;
receiving trip information for a trip corresponding to the digital wallet profile, wherein:
the trip information comprises at least one of a location and a time period of a trip, and
the first transaction type corresponds to transactions that occur during the trip;
receiving a first payment request from a first device, wherein:
the first payment request is associated with a purchase;
the first payment request comprises at least one of a location of the purchase and a time of the purchase; and
the first payment request comprises a digital wallet profile identifier;
identifying the digital wallet profile using the digital wallet profile identifier;
transmitting a payment confirmation, wherein the payment confirmation comprises:
first payment information; and
a transaction code;
receiving a second payment request from the first device, wherein:
the second payment request corresponds to a tip related to the purchase; and
the second payment request comprises the digital wallet profile identifier and the transaction code;
determining that the second payment request is associated with the first payment request based, at least in part, on the second payment request comprising the transaction code;
determining that the second payment request relates to the trip based, at least in part, on the at least one of the location of the purchase corresponding to the location of the trip and the time of the purchase corresponding to the time period of the trip;
identifying the first tipping percentage based, at least in part, on determining that the second payment request relates to the first transaction type and the first preference of the set of preferences;
calculating a tip amount based, at least in part, on the first tipping percentage; and
transmitting a tipping confirmation to the first device, wherein the tipping confirmation comprises:
the tip amount;
second payment information; and
the transaction code.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe determining tip amounts for transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The digital wallet and first device in claim 41 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 51 and 83 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 41: digital wallet; first device
Claim 51: digital wallet; first device; control circuitry; memory
Claim 83: digital wallet; first device
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 41, 51, and 83 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0131] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 41, 51, and 83 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 42-49, 52-55, 57-58, 81-82, and 84 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 41, 51, and 83 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
The additional element of a second device in dependent claims 42-49, 52-55, 57-58, and 81-82 is also recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 41-49, 51-55, 57-58, and 81-84 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnaiah (US 2016/0071094 A1) discloses a method by which a user may utilize a hybrid dynamic wallet token to make the purchase, without having to present other identification, such as a driver's license. In an embodiment, the information included with the wallet token may include user's preferences, user's loyalty accounts, user's routines, and/or other user related information. As such, transactions may be processed based on this information included with the wallet token. For example, a payment at a restaurant may include a user's preference for percentage of tip. As such, a preferred percentage for a tip may automatically be added to the payment based on the user's preference information included with the wallet token. As such, the user may pay with the wallet token without have to figure out the amount of tip for the bill.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693