Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered March 04, 2026 for the patent application 18/775,230.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 16 and 19 are currently amended in the application.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are cancelled in the application without prejudice or disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with an Amendment on March 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
“Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility under § 101 is a "two-prong inquiry" (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)). With respect to Prong One of Step 2A, the MPEP explains that "if the identified limitation(s) do not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to find that the claim does not recite an abstract idea," except in rare circumstances (MPEP § 2106.04(a)). The Office alleges that the claims are directed to fundamental economic practices and fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping but for recitation of generic computing components (id., p. 4).“, (see page 8 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG") states that a category of abstract ideas is a "Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity", which are concepts relating to the economy and commerce, such as agreements between people in the form of contracts, legal obligations, and business relations. A system for determine, based at least in part on information received from a first mobile device, that a battery level of the first mobile device is below a threshold battery level; automatically initiate, without user input and in response to determining that the battery level of the first mobile device is below the threshold battery level, a data transaction from a first account associated with the first mobile device to a second account associated with a second mobile device, the data transaction comprising a finance transaction of a first value amount transferred from the first account to the second account, wherein the first mobile device and the second mobile device belong to a group of linked mobile devices and the second mobile device is within a threshold distance from the first mobile device, wherein the first account is a financial account belonging to a first user of the first mobile device and the second account is a financial account belonging to a second user of the second mobile device , falls under the category of concepts relating to business relations and commerce. Abstract ideas are not limited to ideas that may be characterized as economic principles; nor are abstract ideas limited to the examples set forth in Alice, i.e., fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships or formulae.
Applicant Argument:
“With respect to Prong Two of step 2A, the MPEP instructs examiners to "evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application" (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). The Office sets forth relevant considerations for use in determining whether claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application. For example, if the "claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field," the claim may be integrated into a practical application such that the claimed subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception and is thus patent eligible (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).“, (see page 11 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims does not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – mobile device to perform both the determining and imitating steps. The mobile device in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic mobile device performing a generic computer function of facilitating the request for the mobile device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant Argument:
“Further, the Office states that a claim that fails to integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception may nonetheless be patent eligible if the claim contains additional elements that, individually and in combination, provide an inventive concept (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). In other words, a claim provides an inventive concept if the additional elements of the claim amount to significantly more than an alleged judicial exception to which the claim is directed (see, e.g., MPEP § 2106.05(1)). In considering whether the additional elements of a claim provide an inventive concept, examiners should evaluate "whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception" (id.).“, (see page 14 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. . In the claims included individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the “computer itself,” "another technology,” the "technical field,” or significantly more than what is “well-understood, routine, or conventional” in the related arts. The USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance lists included tables and appendices examples of what has been considered by the Courts to be generic computer functioning and not “significantly more” than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of endeavor. These examples, a non-exhaustive illustrative list, constitute the basis for the findings below. In step two as per Alice, consideration of the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” is set forth to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified system claim 19 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to apparatus claims 1 and 16. Claim 19 recites the limitations of:
( A ) at least one memory; and
( B ) at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the system to:
determine, based at least in part on information received from a first mobile device, that a battery level of the first mobile device is below a threshold battery level;
automatically initiate, without user input and in response to determining that the battery level of the first mobile device is below the threshold battery level, a data transaction from a first account associated with the first mobile device to a second account associated with a second mobile device, the data transaction comprising a finance transaction of a first value amount transferred from the first account to the second account, wherein the first mobile device and the second mobile device belong to a group of linked mobile devices and the second mobile device is within a threshold distance from the first mobile device, wherein the first account is a financial account belonging to a first user of the first mobile device and the second account is a financial account belonging to a second user of the second mobile device;
receive, from the first mobile device, an authentication message indicating authentication of the data transaction;
transmit a transaction complete message indicating that the data transaction is complete;
determine, based at least in part on information received from the first mobile device, that the battery level of the first mobile device is above the threshold battery level; and
automatically initiate, without user input and in response to determining that the battery level of the first mobile device is above the threshold battery level, a second data transaction from the second account to the first account, the second data transaction comprising a second finance transaction of a second value amount transferred from the second account to the first account, the second value amount being equal to or less than the first value amount.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 19 limitations, 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. Claims 1 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of the processor or any of the bolded limitations in claim 19 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claims 1 and 16.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
Furthermore, the “receive” and “transfer” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware 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., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 19, limitation ( A ) and ( B ) above in Applicant’s specification para [00100], which discloses “In some aspects, the techniques described herein relate to a first mobile device including: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first mobile device to: detect that a battery level of the first mobile device is below a threshold battery level; and initiate, based at least in part on the battery level of the first mobile device being below the threshold battery level, a data transaction from a first account associated with the first mobile device to a second account associated with a second mobile device.“.
Also, claim 19, limitation ( B ) above in Applicant’s specification para [00106], which discloses “In some respects, the techniques described herein relate to a first mobile device, wherein to initiate the data transaction, the at least one processor is configured to cause the first mobile device to select the second mobile device to receive the data transaction based at least in part on the second mobile device being within a threshold
distance from the first mobile device.“.
Also, claim 19, limitation ( B ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0086], which discloses “At 1102, a request message is received, from a first mobile device and based on a battery level of the first mobile device being below a threshold battery level, indicating a request to initiate a data transaction from a first account associated with the first mobile device to a second account associated with a second mobile device. The data transaction may include or be an example of a finance transaction of a value amount (e.g., a monetary value amount) from the first account to the second account. For instance, the battery detection module 110 may detect that the battery level of the sender device 102 is below the threshold battery level. In at least one implementation, the first account is the sender account 116 associated with the sender device 102 and the second account is the receiving account 126 associated with the receiver device 104. For example, the sender transaction application 114 may transmit, and the network transaction service 106 may receive, the request message.“.
Also, claim 19, limitation ( B ) above in Applicant’s specification para [00118], which discloses “In some aspects, the techniques described herein relate to a second mobile device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second mobile device to receive, from the first mobile device and based at least in part on the battery level of the first mobile device being above the threshold battery level, a second message indicating that a second data transaction is initiated, where the data transaction comprises a first finance transaction of a first value amount transferred from the first account to the second account and the second data transaction comprises a second finance transaction of a second value amount transferred from the second account to the first account, the second value amount being equal to or less than the first value amount.“. Similar arguments apply to claims 1 and 16.
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.
Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 19 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).
The claims 1 , 16 and 19 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 elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1, 16, and 19 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 – 6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 - 15, 17, 18 and 20 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 - 15, 17, 18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 2, this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 2 states “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first mobile device to complete the data transaction in response to authentication of the data transaction.”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 3, this claim merely recite, "wherein, to complete the data transaction, the at least one processor is configured to cause a selectable control to be presented on a display of the first mobile device, the selectable control being selectable to authenticate the data transaction.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 4, this claim merely recite, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause a selectable control to be presented on a display of the first mobile device, the selectable control being selectable to accept or deny the data transaction.”. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 5, this claim merely recite, "wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first mobile device to complete the data transaction in response to the selectable control being selected to accept the data transaction.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 6, this claim merely recite, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first mobile device to abort the data transaction in response to the selectable control being selected to deny the data transaction.". These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 9, this claim merely recite, "wherein the first value amount is preconfigured in a digital wallet application on the first mobile device and associated with the first account.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 10, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the displaying the prompt. Merely stating, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first mobile device to display a prompt indicating to input the first value amount.”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the mobile device. Merely stating “wherein the threshold battery level is preconfigured, selected by a user of the first mobile device, or configured on a digital wallet application on the first mobile device and associated with the first account.”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, this claim merely recite, "transmit, to the second mobile device based at least in part on initiating the data transaction, a message indicating that the data transaction is initiated; and transmit, to the second mobile device based at least in part on completing the data transaction, a transaction complete message indicating that the data transaction is complete.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 – 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H. HOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3461. The examiner can normally be reached on MON. - FRI 10 AM - 8 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, MATTHEW S. GART can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John H. Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights