AIA
Claims 1-20 examined.
Amended 1-3 5-6 8 10 12-15 16-19
New none
Canceled none
US PG PUB 20260050973
PNG
media_image1.png
155
179
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks Applicant for the amendment to advance prosecution.
Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but unfortunately not fully persuasive.
Double patenting withdrawn due to amendment.
As to applicant argument that
No abstract idea (remarks p17)
Examiner
See Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)
Independent Claims all similar.
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here targeted marketing (from linking via token) via computer
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without significantly more.
As to applicant argument that
Integrated practical application (remarks p18)
Examiner
Rather than improve a technology or field … beyond generally linking (remarks ¶ 18 bottom), Applicant simply uses generic technology as a tool. EPG p8 top slip opinion (“uses of existing computers in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas””. The savings – load, redundancy, processing – are the result of computer implementation, and data gathering (ala EPG).
101 maintained.
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
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. The claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The claims and dependents are directed to statutory classes (1 process, 10 machine, 19 article). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
EPG
1. A method for linking instruments, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processing circuits, exchange data comprising an exchange amount for an exchange initiated by a linked payment instrument, wherein the linked payment instrument corresponds to a digital wallet identifier or token stored in a provider data store of a provider, the digital wallet identifier or token digitally linking the linked payment instrument with a plurality of linked merchants linked to [[of a]] the provider;
generating, by the one or more processing circuits, at least one recognition unit corresponding with the exchange amount, the at least one recognition unit comprising an allocation state;
determining, by the one or more processing circuits, a first exchange rate for the at least one recognition unit based on at least one first exchange parameter of a first linked merchant or group of the plurality of linked merchants and the exchange amount;
determining, by the one or more processing circuits, a second exchange rate for the at least one recognition unit based on at least one second exchange parameter of a second linked merchant or group of the plurality of linked merchants and the exchange amount, the at least one recognition unit being agnostic for at least the first linked merchant and the second linked merchant;
generating, by the one or more processing circuits, one or more content items or one or more actionable elements corresponding to the first exchange rate and to the second exchange rate;
providing, by the one or more processing circuits, the one or more content items or the one or more actionable elements to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a provider mobile application of the provider;
selecting. by the one or more processing circuits, one of the first exchange rate or the second exchange rate based on an output of simulating a real-time conversion of a value for the at least one recognition unit based on the first exchange rate and the second exchange rate;
receiving, by the one or more processing circuits, a selection of the one or more content items or the one or more actionable elements corresponding to the first exchange rate or to the second exchange rate;
in response to receiving the selection of the one or more content items or the one or more actionable elements recording an allocation of the at least one recognition unit to the first linked merchant one or more merchants of the plurality of linked merchants, the allocation recorded on a distributed ledger in association with the digital wallet identifier or token from the provider store
updating, by the one or more processing circuits, the allocation state of the at least one recognition unit indicating the at least one recognition unit is allocated to the one or more merchants of the plurality of linked merchants.
Collecting info,
analyzing it,
displaying certain results.
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)
Independent Claims all similar.
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here targeted marketing (from linked wallet identifier or token) via computer
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 are the idea itself albeit computer implemented to use generic elements generally implemented to “apply it”, the abstract idea.
SAP America (CAFC):
“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct” from demonstrating novelty or nonobviousness.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
The claim says one is to take the idea and “apply it” with generic elements generally applied.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional elements – e.g. to perform data gathering. The additional element e.g. is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) 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 additional elements add MPEP 2106.05 is “iii. Mere automation of manual processes”. See (MPEP 21056.05 “vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner”).
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See (MPEP 21056.05 “vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner”). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation”
POC
Pertinent prior art cited by not relied upon:
Neystadt US 20120158476 Online Marketing
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 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 BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights