DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination of 5/15/2026. Amendments to claims 1 and 15 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process and claim 15 is directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for authenticating the identity of a payer for checkout with an authenticated health-ecommerce retailer for processing a third party payment request, i.e. performing a financial transaction, which is a commercial or legal interaction, i.e. sales activities or behaviors, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, bolded below, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently amended) A method for facilitating cardless transaction processing, comprising:
receiving, via one or more computer processors, a request for login from a user;
directing, via the one or more computer processors, a first server to authenticate an identity of the user, wherein the first server is an open authentication provider;
in response to the first server successfully authenticating the identity of the user, directing, via the one or more computer processors, the first server to generate a temporary access code and send the temporary access code to a second server, wherein the second server is a health-ecommerce retailer;
receiving, via the one or more computer processors, a request for checkout from the user;
determining, via the one or more computer processors, if a balance is sufficient;
providing, via the one or more computer processors, a frictionless payment option to the user;
receiving, via the one or more computer processors, a valid access token, wherein the access token is generated at least in part by the temporary access code;
receiving, via the one or more computer processors, a valid bearer token from an application programming interface, the bearer token being an authentication mechanism between the health-ecommerce retailer and the application programming interface;
sending, via the one or more computer processors, a payment request to a third server, wherein the third server is a third party administrator; and
processing, via the one or more computer processors, the payment request.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “one or more computer processors”, “a first server”, “a second server”, access “token”, bearer “token”, i.e. digital representation of data, an “application programming interface” and “a third server” in claim 1 and “one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors”, “a first server”, “a second server”, an “application programming interface” and “a third server” in claim 15, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed for communicating over a generic network and displaying information, to perform the abstract idea steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs [0034-0036], [0039], “API 140 is an application programming interface allowing two or more computer programs to communicate with each other. API 140 is a type of software interface, offering a service to other pieces of software. In an exemplary embodiment, API 140 comprises MULESOFT® integration software” which is a most generic computer element leveraged in a very conventional manner, and [0175-0188] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, 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 of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 15 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of authenticating the identity of a payer for checkout with an authenticated health-ecommerce retailer for processing a third party payment request, i.e. performing a financial transaction, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, the limitation of claims 2 and 16 further refine the abstract idea and falls under a commercial or legal interaction. Also, but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements, this can be completed manually. Claims 3 and 17 further refine the abstract idea and are claimed at a very high level of generality such that they also fall under mental observation and evaluation but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claims 4 and 18 are further refines the abstract idea and are also claimed at a very high level of generality such that a human being can perform these limitation steps manually and in the mind but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claims 5, 6, 7, 18, 19 and 20 further refine the abstract idea and are all claimed at a very high level of generality such that there are no technical implementation details as to how these steps occur. A human being can determine if a token has expired, request and issue new tokens and use said tokens but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claims 8, 9, 10 and 11 further refine the abstract idea and can be completed in the mind but for any nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claims 12 and 13 further refine the abstract idea and both can be completed manually through mental evaluation but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claim 14 further refines the abstract idea by defining data/information sent from one party to another but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for authenticating the identity of a payer for checkout with an authenticated health-ecommerce retailer for processing a third party payment request, i.e. performing a financial transaction) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for authenticating the identity of a payer for checkout with an authenticated health-ecommerce retailer for processing a third party payment request, i.e. performing a financial transaction) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks of 11/21/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “The claimed invention extends beyond the operation of a single computer, and as such, cannot be performed by a computer alone. On that basis, the claims do not fall within the scope of a judicial exception.” and further on page 8, “Claims 1 and 15 do not simply provide "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions" as in the decision in Electric Power Group. Claims 1 and 17 each as a whole go beyond simply claiming instructions to the generic computer as they each include determining steps that go beyond the judicial exception, and they all include communication with multiple other devices. This is clearly within the bounds of patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, the claims as written are directed to a specific, computer-networked authentication-and-authorization workflow that improves the security and operability of cardless checkout across multiple systems (user device, open authentication provider, health-ecommerce retailer, API, and third-party administrator).”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The abstract idea of authenticating the identity of a payer for checkout with an authenticated health-ecommerce retailer for processing a third party payment request, i.e. performing a financial transaction, existed well before the advent of computing technology. The ecommerce is merely automating an otherwise manual brick and mortar store. Applicant makes this clear in paragraph [0002] of the specification. Any improvement in security and operability is due to leveraging generic computing elements interacting in a most general high level manner to complete the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“…the claims do not merely recite generic computer processors that amount to no more than adding the words "apply it" on a computer. The claims require specific credential types and exchanges (temporary access code, access token derived from that code, bearer token for API authentication) and specific actors (open authentication provider, retailer, API, third-party administrator), which distinguish them from claims that merely automate longstanding commercial practices using generic computing components.” and “Furthermore, the additional elements of the claims are not conventional, and the eligibility analysis does not require proving novelty. The ordered combination can still be inventive if it recites a specific architecture that solves a technical problem in a particular way.”. and “Therefore, the claims are directed to a technical solution for enabling "frictionless" cardless checkout while maintaining secure, temporary, token-based authorization across disparate systems, which is an improvement in computer/network functionality and secured transactions and not an abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims only recite using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed for communicating over a generic network and displaying information, to perform the abstract idea steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs [0034-0036], [0039], “API 140 is an application programming interface allowing two or more computer programs to communicate with each other. API 140 is a type of software interface, offering a service to other pieces of software. In an exemplary embodiment, API 140 comprises MULESOFT® integration software” which is a most generic computer element leveraged in a very conventional manner, and [0175-0188] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the steps of the claims, taken individually or as an ordered combination, have been identified in the rejection as corresponding to abstract ideas. The additional elements in the claims are “one or more computer processors”, “a first server”, “a second server”, access “token”, bearer “token”, i.e. digital representation of data, an “application programming interface” and “a third server” in claim 1 and “one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors”, “a first server”, “a second server”, an “application programming interface” and “a third server” in claim 15 to execute the claimed steps. See at least FIG.1 and paragraphs [0034-0036], [0039], “API 140 is an application programming interface allowing two or more computer programs to communicate with each other. API 140 is a type of software interface, offering a service to other pieces of software. In an exemplary embodiment, API 140 comprises MULESOFT® integration software” which is a most generic computer element leveraged in a very conventional manner, and [0175-0188] of the specification. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components. The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
Examiner has pointed to the computing functionality leveraged as well-understood, routine and conventional computing functionality, both individually and in combination, See MPEP 2106.05(d). The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence these additional elements do not add anything significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights