DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to filing dated 8/9/2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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
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 1-7 are directed to a method; claims 8-14 are directed to system; claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claim 1 and 8 are directed to –
receiving a financial transaction request from a user; receiving information about the amount of the transaction; receiving information about the beneficiary from the user (content consumer) or content creator, content, Gesture, or predefined by the method; utilizing predefined variables and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence, to determine all information required to complete the transactions, without any additional user prompt for information, selection or confirmation; processing the financial transaction request based on the information; and notifying the user of the transaction without interfering with the user's consumption of the digital content on the device
– that describes Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence falls under the abstract idea category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent claim 15 recites -
receiving a transaction request from a user, wherein such request is received from a Gesture on the same screen displaying digital content on Technology Platform or Social Network;
receiving information about the amount of the user;
receiving information about the amount of the transaction from the Gesture or predefined by the system and method;
receiving information about the beneficiary charity from the Gesture and the content displayed or predefined by the system and method;
utilizing predefined variables and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence, to determine and store all information required to complete the transactions, without any additional user prompt for information, selection or confirmation;
processing the financial transaction request based on the information;
notifying the user of the transaction with a small disappearing notification on the screen without interfering with the user's consumption of the digital content on the device;
Receiving the donations, allocating and distributing donations to charities; and
adding to the user satisfaction from engaging with social media platforms, through issuance of donation tax receipts to users/donors.
– that describes Commercial/Legal Interactions and Managing Interactions between People hence falls under the abstract idea category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to –
(claims, 2, 9) the Gesture triggers a transaction to complete without any additional user prompt for information, selection, or confirmation, so that the transaction completes without any interruption or pause
the Gesture is triggered while digital content is displayed on the screen and without interrupting user's access to content;
the Gesture triggers a payment to a single pre-determined charitable cause;
the amount of the Gesture initiated transaction is pre-determined, such as $0.01
a series of consecutively occurring single action Gestures may be interpreted as a series of transactions or a single transaction; and
the single Gesture action can be any single action Gesture, including tapping on screen or device, speaking of a sound (voice gesture), shaking of device, without limiting
(claims 3, 10) the single action Gesture is a two finger tap on screen displaying content; and
the first single Gesture of two finger tap is ignored to avoid device conflicts, and all subsequent two finger taps are counted as single Gestures
(claims 4, 11) the Gesture and related transaction is confirmed by displaying a visual or text confirmation or feedback to the user on top of the host interface;
the Gesture, the content, the content consumer, and content creator, pre-determined variables set by the system, and predictive tools collectively determine the amount of the transaction;
the single action Gesture, the content, the content consumer, and content creator, pre-determined variables set by the system, and predictive tools collectively determine the beneficiary of the transaction; and
the Gesture results in a transaction on the time and date of the Gesture.
(claims 5, 12) the Gestures from pledge transactions on the during certain time and date, are consolidated and settled with a donation on a periodic basis;
the donations are received by a charitable cause on a periodic basis, and such donations are consolidated and distributed to designated projects on regular intervals;
the user has option to reject or reverse a Gesture initiated transaction, only after the transaction completes; and
the user can cancel or reverse a Gesture initiated transactions prior to each periodic settlement
(claims 6, 13) the transaction is a pledge transaction;
a pledge transaction is followed by a donation transaction; and
the financial transaction is one chosen from the group consisting of a donation transaction, any payment transaction, and any payment transaction in combination of a pledge transaction
(claims 7, 14) means for verifying the availability of funds or payment method associated with the user before settling transactions.
(claim 16) receiving and processing information regarding a Gesture, its frequency, time-separation between each Gesture;
receiving and processing information about the digital content on screen at an incident of Gesture;
historical activity of the user consuming the content;
Receiving unique or semi-unique identification information for the content consumer and creator;
receiving and processing user profile information about the content consumer and creator, predefined variables and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence;
wherein the single action Gesture, the content, the content consumer, and content creator, predefined variables and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence, collectively determine the amount of the transaction; and
the transaction can be pledge, donation or payment transaction, or combination thereof
(claim 17) the Gesture results in a pledge transaction in the amount of US$0.01;
the series of consecutively occurring Gestures results in a similar series of pledge transactions, each in the amount of US$0.01; and
the series of consecutively and closely occurring Gestures results in pledge transactions that are greater than US$0.01 or ratio greater than $0.01 per Gesture, e.g., geometrically increasing transaction amount as the number of consecutively occurring Gestures increases
(claim 18) the Gesture or series of Gestures results in different transaction amounts, based on the user's profile, social media profile, geographical location, device cost, and Gesture history, frequency of Gesture with a specific content creator vs another content creator, predictive tools, and predefined variables by system and method
(claim 19) the single action Gesture, the content, the content consumer, and content creator, predefined variables and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence, collectively determine the beneficiary of the transaction; and
the Gesture results in a pledge transaction to the benefit of a party selected by the content consumer or content creator, predefined variables set by the system and method, and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence.
(claim 20) the Gesture triggers a transaction to complete without any additional user prompt for information, selection, or confirmation, so that the transaction completes without any interruption or pause;
the single action Gesture is triggered while digital content is displayed on the screen and without interrupting user's access to content;
the user has option to reject or reverse a Gesture initiated transaction, only after the transaction completes;
the user can cancel or reverse a Gesture initiated transactions prior to each periodic settlement;
the Gesture triggers a payment to a single pre-determined charitable cause; and
the amount of the Gesture initiated transaction is pre-determined, such as $0.01
– that also constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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 – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: device screen displaying digital content on Technology Platform or Social Network; non-transitory computer readable medium.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]:
(1) Whether 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. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described “the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’” 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Here, Examiner finds that the following claim limitations:
utilizing predefined variables and/or predictive tools, including artificial intelligence, to determine all information required to complete the transactions, without any additional user prompt for information, selection or confirmation;
notifying the user of the transaction notification on the screen without interfering with the user's consumption of the digital content on the device.
have been recited in a result-focused and functional way such they cover any solution to an identified problem.
Each of the functions is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. All purported inventive concepts reside in how the “utilizing …. Including artificial intelligence … without any additional user prompt,” and “notifying … without interfering with” are technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically achieves the result which neither the specification or the drawings shed any light on. Examiner thus finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements – receiving, utilizing, processing, notifying – does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the computer as a tool and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – initiating same screen uninterrupted gesture based financial transaction – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – initiating same screen uninterrupted gesture based financial transaction – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Prior Art
Relevant Prior Art not relied upon but made of record:
US20210383355 Gesture-Controlled Payment Instrument
US20150269555 Systems and methods for using gestures in financial transactions on mobile devices
US20220277289 Method and apparatus for transaction management
US10019711 Processing of online payment transactions
US20180349478 Social media system with navigable, artificial-intelligence-based graphical user interface
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached at (571)272-6709. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692