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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The 103 rejection of the claims is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments and applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite a judicial exception. The claims are directed to transit system entry gate control, which is hardware functionality.
The Office asserts that the claims are directed to the use of a transit system entry gate control. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the purported abstract idea into a practical application, and improvement in the form of reduced latency and increased security.
The Office asserts that the reduced latency and increased security are not reflected in the claim language and therefore the argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more due to a non-generic non-conventional arrangement of elements.
The Office asserts that the applicant has not offered further explanation of any particular arrangement of elements considered to be non-generic or unconventional and why they should be deemed such other than to cite the functions of these elements, which does not explain the non-generic and unconventional arrangement itself.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 - are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
The method of claim 1, system of claim 11 and CRM of claim 19 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one - do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea
enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Using the text of claim 1 as an example, independent claims 1, 11 and 19 recite:
1. A computer-implemented transit system entry gate control method, comprising:
receiving, by an online server system of a post pay transit system, a payment authentication request associated with a transit transaction performed by a payment card associated with a cardholder at a transit merchant;
identifying, by the online server system, a card status of the payment card, the card status indicating whether the payment card is associated with at least one of a risky label or a non-risky label;
upon identifying that the payment card is associated with a risky label, accessing, by the online server system, a pre-auth feature set associated with the payment card from a database associated with the online server system;
computing, by a pre-auth Machine Learning (ML) model associated with the online server system, a pre-auth score associated with the payment card based, at least in part, on the pre-auth feature set;
determining, by the online server system, a pre-auth amount associated with the payment card for a predefined time period based, at least in part, on comparing the pre-auth score with a plurality of predefined pre-auth thresholds;
transmitting, by the online server system, a risk indication message comprising at least the card status and the pre-auth amount to the transit merchant; and
causing, by the online server system, a merchant server associated with the transit merchant to automatically perform:
denying entry, by a cardholder, to a transit system entry gate in response to a first entry by the payment card at the transit system entry gate when the card status indicates a risky label:
sending by the merchant server associated with the transit merchant, in response to a second entry by the payment card at the transit system entry gate when-the card
status indicates the risky label, a pre-authorization request with the pre-auth amount to an issuer server via an acquirer server for a second transaction request; and
enabling entry.by the cardholder to the transit system entry gate in response to an approval of the pre-authorization request by the issuer server.
Referring to the underlined limitations above, independent claims 1, 11 and 19 each recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claims 1, 11 and 19 are each directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted each of claims 1, 11 and 19 only recite the commercial or legal interaction of mitigating settlement risk by determining a card status and a pre-auth amount based on risk. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) listing mitigating settlement risk as an example of a commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, each of claims 1, 11 and 19 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Although the claims have been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claims also fall in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) lists mitigating settlement risk as an example of fundamental economic principles or practices. Here, determining a card status and a pre-
auth amount based on risk is a fundamental economic practice.
Step 2A, prong two - do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, these claims only recite the additional elements of a computer, online server system, post pay transit system, merchant server, issuer server, acquirer server, communication interface, memory, processor, payment card, database and pre-auth Machine Learning (ML) model.
The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or
other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. Regarding existing process, please see Applicant's specification, [0004]. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claims 1, 11 and 19 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem. Regarding
the additional element of "pre-auth Machine Learning (ML) model", please also see Recentive Analytics, Inc. V. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), which affirmed the District of Delaware's dismissal of Recentive's infringement suit on the ground that the asserted patents were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision reinforces the courts' view that applying generic machine learning techniques to known problems - without technical innovation in the machine
learning methods themselves - is insufficient for patent eligibility.
Step 2B - do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements previously recited amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The
computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant's specification, [0177]. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 19 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1, 11 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims.
Specifically, claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional element in the dependent claims including the binary classification model (claim 4); clearing request message, issuer server (claims 8, 17); multiclass classification model (claim 9); payment server, payment network (claims 10, 18), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights