DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 14-16, 23-60 have been canceled.
Claims 64-65 have been added.
Claims 1-13, 17-22, and 61-65 are currently pending and have been examined.
The previous 112(a) rejection is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. Claim 22 stands rejected under 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #1:
A. The Claims Are Not Directed to an "Abstract Idea"
…Here, the claims do not recite any of the above abstract ideas and, accordingly, are "eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(1). The Office asserts that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Office Action at 14, 16. In particular, the Office asserts that the claims "under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover[] commercial or legal interactions...but for the recitation of generic computer components." Id. at 13. Applicant does not concede or acquiesce to these assertions….
These interrelated elements, when considered as an ordered combination, remove the claim from any potential realm of human activity. In particular, the claimed operations require coordinated interactions between multiple networked devices and server-side components, including API-based communications, permissions and location data access, real-time acquisition and evaluation of device-specific location data, and enforcement of a transaction validation time window during which the transaction is held in memory pending evaluation. Such operations do not recite or merely automate a fundamental economic practice or other method of organizing human activity (such as merely managing interpersonal transactions or business interactions), but instead implement a specific, technologically grounded solution rooted in networked computing architecture involving a plurality of different devices. See Specification at [0056].
Thus, as currently amended, claim 1 does not recite any abstract idea, let alone one directed to organizing human activity.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, while the claims have been amended to include certain additional elements (the second device, registration engine, API’s, etc), the claims however still recite and are directed towards an abstract idea for commercial and legal interactions for authorizing a transaction based on data associated with the vendor and the transaction, as shown here:
authorizing a transaction request, comprising:
access data including: vendor information for at least one vendor, user preferences for each vendor of the at least one vendor, and permissions data defining conditions under which transaction processing is enabled;
receive configuration input via a user, the configuration input defining at least part of the permissions data, wherein the permissions data includes location data for approval or disapproval of the transaction request for the at least one vendor;
update the permissions data based on the configuration input;
receive the transaction request;
obtain, in response to receiving the transaction request, the location data associated with the second device
initiate, in response to receiving the transaction request, a transaction validation time window during which the transaction request is held in memory for a predetermined time duration defining the transaction validation time window, awaiting a decision by a payment processing engine operated by the server for approval or denial of the transaction request;
evaluate, during the transaction validation time window, based on the location data, whether the transaction request satisfies the permissions data; and
transmit, upon determining that the transaction request satisfies the permissions data within the transaction validation time window, a transaction validation response.
Additionally, as per MPEP 2106.05(f) use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);, as is the case with further describing the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to with respect to the server, API’s and first/second devices. Furthermore, this is akin to Alice Corp. and ineligible for the same reasons, in which the Court walked through the test and found:
The Court identified the additional elements in the claim, e.g., by noting that the method claims recited steps of using a computer to "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions", and that the product claims recited hardware such as a "data processing system" with a "communications controller" and a "data storage unit" (573 U.S. at 224-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);
The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #2:
B. The Claims Are Integrated into a Practical Application
Because the Office's analysis under Prong One of Step 2A is improper, analysis under Prong Two is unnecessary. Nevertheless, even assuming that the claims recite an abstract idea, which they do not, the claims are not "directed to" any alleged abstract idea under M.P.E.P. § 2106.04 because they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Rather than address whether the claims present a technical solution to a technical problem, the Office asserts that that "the additional elements of a system comprising a server with at least one processor, at least one database, a device in communicative connection with the server, a user interface, a second device in communicative connection with the server, and a transaction engine... are recited at a high level of generality." Office Action at 13. Applicant respectfully disagrees. According to the USPTO Memorandum, Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, "the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification." USPTO, Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Memorandum dated Aug. 4, 2025.
Here, the pending claims recite specific, interrelated technical components that that reflect "an improvement to . . . technology or [a] technical field" and "appl[y] or use[] the judicial exception in [a] meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(III) ("[T]he analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application."…
Applicant submits that the claimed elements, in combination, provide a concrete technical improvement over prior art transaction authorization systems. See Specification at [0059]. In particular, by "receiving, from a first device preregistered with the server via a device registration engine, configuration input via a user interface, the configuration input defining at least part of the permissions data, wherein the permissions data includes location data for approval or disapproval of the transaction request for the at least one vendor," and "obtaining, in response to receiving the transaction request, the location data associated with the second device," the server is configured to dynamically enforce constraints on location-dependent authorization of transactions by the server. The server then "evaluates, during the transaction validation time window, based on the location data, whether the transaction request satisfies the permissions data; and transmits, upon determining that the transaction request satisfies the permissions data within the transaction validation time window, a transaction validation response to the second device via the transaction API." These integrated operations enable real-time, server-side validation based on multiple devices and device-specific and transaction-specific location criteria, thereby improving fraud detection while reducing latency in authorization decisions. The claimed features are not a mere use of generic computer components, but instead provide technical benefits in the form of enhanced security, improved scalability of transaction validation, and increased responsiveness of server-based transaction processing systems.
Applicant submits that the claims are eligible at Prong Two because "the claim[s] as a whole integrat[e] the [alleged] recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(II)(A)(2).
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, but for generally linking the abstract idea to the computer environment, receiving configuration input, the configuration input defining at least part of the permissions data, wherein the permissions data includes location data for approval or disapproval of the transaction request for the at least one vendor, and obtaining, in response to receiving the transaction request, the location data associated with the second device, dynamically enforce constraints on location-dependent authorization of transactions by the server and evaluating, during the transaction validation time window, based on the location data, whether the transaction request satisfies the permissions data; and transmits, upon determining that the transaction request satisfies the permissions data within the transaction validation time window, a transaction validation response are all abstract steps. Using a server, API’s and communicating between the devices to do so is not a technical improvement as evident by several Court decision, for example Sending and receiving data over a network is WURC as evident by several decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d) (see Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); as examples), as is Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;. The use of API’s does not provide an inventive concept, as API’s are well-known in the field for sending and receiving data as evident by NPL Using APIs to collect website data, which shows it' s well-understood, routine and conventional to use API' s to request data from databases, apps, and websites, which states:
“Web APIs provide a means of communication between websites and users, structured by rules. In particular, they allow users to obtain clearly defined kinds of data quickly, by requesting it directly from the database underlying a particular website. (This isn' t the only kind of API. For example, smartphone apps frequently use APIs to send data back and forth between your device and the application' s database… Many major companies, as well as government agencies, have created public APIs. These organizations provide easy access to their data to encourage developers to use their platforms. At Pew Research Center, we regularly use APIs to collect information for the studies we produce.”
Using the geolocation does not provide an inventive concept as this is part of the abstract idea, amounts to using the devices to send and receiving data over the network necessary for approving the transaction, the additional elements are merely part of the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to.
Applicant argues #3:
C. The Claims Amount To "Significantly More" Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
As noted above, the claims do not recite and are not directed to an abstract idea, and, thus, the "significantly more" inquiry does not apply. Nevertheless, even assuming the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which they are not), the claims amount to "significantly more" than any abstract idea because the claims recite "additional elements" that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional….
Even assuming that amended claims 1 and 22 recite an abstract idea, the claims as a whole amount to significantly more, in a manner consistent with Examples 34 and 35 of the USPTO 2016 Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In Example 34, eligibility is found where additional elements, although implemented using conventional computing components, operate together in a specific, ordered combination that applies the abstract idea in a technologically meaningful way, rather than merely performing generic data processing.
Similarly, amended claim 1 recites a particularized sequence of system-level operations, including: (i) updating permissions data stored in the at least one database based on configuration input from a first device; (ii) obtaining, in response to a transaction request, location data associated with a second device; and (iii) evaluating, during a transaction validation time window and based on the location data, whether the transaction request satisfies the permissions data. These features do not merely collect, compare, or transmit information, but instead constrain both the temporal and operational manner in which transaction authorization is performed by the system.
As in Example 34, these additional elements, when considered as an ordered combination, go beyond routine or conventional activity by integrating the alleged abstract idea into a concrete technological implementation. In Example 34, claim 1 was found eligible not simply because it recited generic components, but because it defined an unconventional and non-generic arrangement of known elements. Specifically, the placement of a filtering tool at a remote ISP server with customizable filtering was tied to individual user accounts, which differed from traditional client-side or static filtering approaches and improved the functioning of Internet content filtering technology itself.
Likewise, the present claim does not merely invoke generic data processing, but instead defines a specific system architecture and coordinated sequence, including device-specific inputs, server-side evaluation, and a temporally constrained validation window, that meaningfully limits how the abstract idea is implemented. As in Example 34, it is this particular, non-conventional arrangement and interaction of components, rather than any individual element alone, that provides the inventive concept. The claimed system therefore reflects a technological improvement in how transaction validation is performed and, accordingly, constitutes "significantly more" than the underlying abstract idea.
In Example 35, claim 3 was found eligible not simply because it involved identity verification, but because it recited a specific interaction among multiple devices, including an ATM generating a random code, a mobile device generating a corresponding confirmation code, and a system controlling access based on a comparison of the codes. Together, the elements of claim 3 were said to provide a technological solution that improved the security of verification processes.
In particular, Example 35's eligible claim 3 recites a distributed verification process across multiple devices, in which (i) a first device (e.g., an ATM) generates a first verification parameter (a random code), (ii) a second device (e.g., a mobile device) independently generates a corresponding confirmation value, and (iii) a system performs a comparison of these device-generated values to control access. The significance of this arrangement lies not in the individual steps of generating or comparing codes, but in the coordinated interaction between distinct devices, each contributing a different piece of information to a verification decision, thereby improving the technical reliability and security of the overall system.
Amended claim 1 (and 22) reflects a closely analogous structure. Specifically, the claim includes: a first device that provides configuration input used to define and update permissions data; a second device that transmits a transaction request via an API; and a server-side system that, in response to the request, obtains device-specific location data associated with the second device, and evaluates the request against the permissions data. This mirrors Example 35 in that different devices generate and contribute distinct inputs that are then combined by the system to control access (here, transaction authorization rather than identity verification). Just as the ATM and mobile device in Example 35 generate separate but related verification values, the first device and second device here provide separate, functionally distinct data inputs.
Moreover, amended claim 1 introduces an additional layer of coordination through the transaction validation time window, during which the transaction request is held in memory and evaluated before a response is transmitted. This temporal feature further reinforces the analogy to Example 35's coordinated sequence by ensuring that the system performs synchronized, real-time processing of inputs from multiple sources, rather than a simple static comparison. In effect, the claimed system not only requires multiple devices to contribute inputs, but also enforces a specific timing and sequencing constraint on how those inputs are processed to reach an authorization decision.
Accordingly, the present claims are analogous to Example 35 not only at a high level, but in the specific manner in which multiple devices contribute distinct data inputs that are processed in a coordinated, non-conventional sequence to control access. It is this particular coordination and interaction across system components that provides the inventive concept.
The claims therefore recite significantly more than the underlying abstract idea, as was the case for Examples 34 and 35. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the same reasons as above under Applicant’s arguments pertaining to integrating the claims into a practical application, the claims fail to amount to significantly more. As MPEP 2106.05(f) use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. The inclusion of the additional elements and limiting the idea to computer environment does not amount to technical improvement. As is the case here and evident by the aforementioned Court Decisions, the additional elements are merely being used as tools for implementing the idea, and to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See, e.g., id. 1336–39; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, this inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, in-stead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36).
With respect to Example 35, the combination of the steps and additional elements (e.g., the ATM’s provision of the random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the customer confirmation code in response to the random code, the ATM’s analysis of the customer confirmation code, and the ATM’s subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM and thus allow or prevent a transaction based on the analysis of the code data sets) operates in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone which set up a sequence of events that addressed unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Here the claims do not recite a specific combination of additional elements that presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea addressing a unique security problem, rather that claims recite a series of steps a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36).
Similarly, with respect to Example 34 and Bascom, the claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in Bascom or Example 34, in which the inventive concept was the unconventional arrangement of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, this design permitted the filtering tool to have both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server and was not conventional or generic, instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345.). In the instant application the claims do not have an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements or result in an improvement in technology related to the additional elements themselves or Internet as was the case in Bascom and Example 34, as the system comprising a server with at least one processor, at least one database, first device preregistered by a device registration engine, user interface, second device in communicative connection with the server, and transaction API are merely being used as tools for performing abstract concepts, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides evidence that this is not a technical improvement (see receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);, Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")).
For the reasons above, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the server" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-13, 17-22, and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a system, and method.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
authorizing a transaction request, comprising:
access data including: vendor information for at least one vendor, user preferences for each vendor of the at least one vendor, and permissions data defining conditions under which transaction processing is enabled;
receive configuration input via a user, the configuration input defining at least part of the permissions data, wherein the permissions data includes location data for approval or disapproval of the transaction request for the at least one vendor;
update the permissions data based on the configuration input;
receive the transaction request;
obtain, in response to receiving the transaction request, the location data associated with the second device
initiate, in response to receiving the transaction request, a transaction validation time window during which the transaction request is held in memory for a predetermined time duration defining the transaction validation time window, awaiting a decision by a payment processing engine operated by the server for approval or denial of the transaction request;
evaluate, during the transaction validation time window, based on the location data, whether the transaction request satisfies the permissions data; and
transmit, upon determining that the transaction request satisfies the permissions data within the transaction validation time window, a transaction validation response.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a system comprising a server with at least one processor, at least one database, a first device preregistered by a device registration engine, a user interface, a second device in communicative connection with the server, and a transaction API, and in the dependent claims a notification system, a machine learning model, and an authentication system nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions for authorizing transactions based on information associated with the user and vendor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a system comprising a server with at least one processor, at least one database, a first device preregistered by a device registration engine, a user interface, a second device in communicative connection with the server, and a transaction API, and in the dependent claims a notification system, a machine learning model, and an authentication system. The system comprising a server with at least one processor, at least one database, first device preregistered by a device registration engine, user interface, second device in communicative connection with the server, and transaction API, and in the dependent claims the notification system, machine learning model, and authentication system are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of mobile computers. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). With respect to the use of API’s for communicating data between the devices, the prior art shows it’s well-known in the art to use API’s to communicate data1 and the API’s are merely further defining the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to. The specification describes the server, first device, and second device as generic computer components, describing the devices as smartphones or a POS devices (as in [0050], [0070], and [0074]), and server as highly generic computer components in [0060]. The notification system and authentication system are described as functions of the server ([0070], and [0099]) or third party services and transaction engine is only vaguely mentioned in the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these to be generic computers programmed to perform the claimed functions. Similarly the user interface and machine learning model are claimed at highly generic level such that they are generic computer components and merely part of the technical environment in which the idea is being generally linked to. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of a system comprising a server with at least one processor, at least one database, a first device preregistered by a device registration engine, a user interface, a second device in communicative connection with the server, and a transaction API to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);, Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites and sending and receiving data over network, and storing and retrieving information from the network database for authorizing transactions based on information associated with the user and vendor. Further, the user interface and use of API’s falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-12, 15-21, and 61-65 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, further describing commercial and legal interactions and further describing the environment in which the idea is being limited to but for recitation of a notification system, machine learning model, point of sale device, and authentication system, however as discussed above, these are generic computer components, and generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment which is not indicative of a practical application. As per MPEP 2106.05(f), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 See NPL Using APIs to collect website data which discloses “Web APIs provide a means of communication between websites and users, structured by rules. In particular, they allow users to obtain clearly defined kinds of data quickly, by requesting it directly from the database underlying a particular website. (This isn' t the only kind of API. For example, smartphone apps frequently use APIs to send data back and forth between your device and the application' s database…”
