DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 18/792023.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Claims 1-9 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 10-17 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to identify relevant data and display analytics data, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
receiving, … a plurality of transaction data … associated with a sub-merchant;
extracting … a plurality of transaction articles from the plurality of transaction data;
determining … an associated weight for each transaction article of the plurality of transaction articles;
storing … in a transaction database … each transaction article and the associated weight as a plurality of aggregated transaction data;
providing … the plurality of aggregated transaction data to a … model trained to predict whether the plurality of aggregated transaction data is relevant to the sub-merchant based on a plurality of geographical data associated with the sub-merchant;
determining,… to transmit a plurality of sub-merchant analytics data associated with the plurality of aggregated transaction data to the sub-merchant;
identifying, by analyzing … data received from the sub-merchant, a first percentage of display regions of the … dashboard occupied by existing content;
identifying … that the plurality of sub-merchant analytics data is capable of being displayed in the one or more display regions associated with a second percentage of display regions of the … dashboard unoccupied by content;
generating … the one or more display regions of the … dashboard, the one or more display regions including the plurality of sub-merchant analytics data; and
transmitting … the one or more display regions of the … dashboard.
The identified limitations in the claims describing identifying relevant data and displaying analytics data (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices. Dependent claims 7, 8, and 16, recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea (i.e., identifying relevant data and displaying analytics data); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the one or more processors; one or more point of sale (POS) terminals; acquirer processor computing system; and computing device associated with the electronic dashboard in claim 1, the memory storing instructions and a machine-learning model; one or more processors operatively connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations; one or more processors; acquirer processor computing system; and computing device associated with the electronic dashboard in claim 10, the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an acquirer processor computing system to perform a method; one or more processors; one or more point of sale (POS) terminals; acquirer processor computing system; and computing device associated with the electronic dashboard in claim 18, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer. Additional elements in claims 4 and 13 reciting that certain steps are performed in real-time only add computer implantation of abstract steps and do provide an improvement to the computer. The court in FairWarning found that accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data does not show an improvement to the computer when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additional elements reciting a machine-learning model trained… and blocks of data do not improve the computer or technology; further, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Similarly, additional elements 6 and 15 related to a second machine-learning model trained do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
Additional elements such as receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of transaction data from one or more point of sale (POS) terminals…; storing, by the one or more processors and in a transaction database in electronic communication with the acquirer processor computing system…; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the one or more display regions of the electronic dashboard to a computing device associated with the electronic dashboard do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering, storage and transmission/display). Similarly, additional elements in claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 reciting the electronic dashboard; and blocks of data … do not provide an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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, the hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See Spec. [0028]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements in claims 4 and 13 reciting that certain steps are performed in real-time only add computer implantation of abstract steps and do provide an improvement to the computer. Additional elements reciting a machine-learning model trained… and blocks of data do not improve the computer or technology; further, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements 6 and 15 related to a second machine-learning model trained do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements such as receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of transaction data from one or more point of sale (POS) terminals…; storing, by the one or more processors and in a transaction database in electronic communication with the acquirer processor computing system…; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the one or more display regions of the electronic dashboard to a computing device associated with the electronic dashboard do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering, storage and transmission/display). Additional elements in claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 reciting the electronic dashboard; and …blocks of data… do not provide an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activities. With respect to data gathering and transmission limitations, the courts have recognized the use of computers to receive and transmit data as well-understood, routine, and conventional, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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). With respect to data storage limitations, the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, and conventional, 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. With respect to data display limitations, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that claims describing identifying relevant data and displaying analytics data (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices. Additionally, limitations related to identifying a percentage of display available in a dashboard only further narrow the abstract idea (i.e., identifying relevant data and displaying analytics data). Additional elements reciting a machine-learning model trained… and blocks of data do not improve the computer or technology; further, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements related to the electronic dashboard and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the one or more display regions of the electronic dashboard to a computing device associated with the electronic dashboard do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data display/transmission).
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims recite certain additional elements, they do not provide a practical application. None of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer. Additional elements reciting a machine-learning model trained… and blocks of data do not improve the computer or technology; further, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims improve the functioning of a computing device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identification of a percentage of a display that is unoccupied does not improve the functioning of the computer. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
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 ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights