DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to arguments filed 5/15/2025.
2. Claims 21-40 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 21-40
Claims 21-40 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 21-30 are directed to a card (system); claims 31-40 are to a method – each of which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
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]
The limitations recited in independent claims 21 and 31 –
detect an initiation of a transaction attempt automatically upon the transaction card entering a [magnetic field of a transaction terminal] or during an initiation of an [EMV data exchange] with the transaction terminal via at least one of the one or more interfaces;
determine, in response to the detected transaction attempt, data associated with the transaction attempt, the data including at least an interface type identifier indicating which of the one or more interfaces was used for the transaction attempt and a timestamp derived from a clock of the transaction card or from the data received from the transaction terminal; and
store the data associated with the transaction attempt within a dedicated [data structure in the memory of the transaction card], thereby creating a log of transaction attempts directly on the transaction card for subsequent retrieval and analysis
– that falls under the Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity groupings of abstract ideas.
The Federal Circuit has consistently held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]electing information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d at 1092, 1095-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a system that develops a full picture of users’ activities on a network by analyzing their access to patient data and comparing their actions to criteria performs mental processes without improving technology to combine disparate data sources).
See also PTAB decision in the parent application Ex parte Jeffrey Rule, Appeal 2023-003899, Application 16/863,437, Page 11 (“At best, claim 9 recites an improvement to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes”).
The limitations recited in the dependent claims –
(Claim 22) wherein the determined data associated with the transaction attempt further includes at least one of: a transaction identifier to identify the transaction attempt, received from the [transaction terminal] or generated by the [processing circuitry of the transaction card]; or a transaction terminal identifier to identify the transaction terminal associated with the transaction attempt, received from the [transaction terminal] during a data exchange.
(Claim 23) wherein the [quality assurance applet] is configured as a default applet on the transaction card by being installed with a default parameter set, thereby making it selectable or selected by default by a [transaction terminal’]s application selection process upon detection of the transaction attempt.
(Claim 24) wherein the [quality assurance applet] is further configured to:
detect a read request for the stored data from an [external computing device], the external computing device being a [mobile phone device], via the [NFC interface]; and
in response to the read request, retrieve the stored data from the memory and communicate the stored data to the [mobile phone device] via the [NFC interface] for subsequent transmission by the [mobile phone device] to a [remote transaction system] for analysis.
(Claim 25) wherein the [quality assurance applet] is further configured to encrypt the stored data using an encryption algorithm executed by the [processing circuitry] prior to communicating the data to the [mobile phone device].
(Claim 26) wherein the [quality assurance applet] is configured to encrypt the data using a cryptographic algorithm, a customer identifier stored in the memory, and a cryptographic key assigned to the transaction card, wherein the key is a private key or a session key uniquely generated by the [processing circuitry] for each communication.
(Claim 27) wherein the data is communicated to the [mobile phone device] as a payload within one or more [NFC Data Exchange Format (NDEF) messages] generated by the [quality assurance applet], each NDEF message comprising one or more records, each record including a header specifying at least a record type and a payload length, and a payload containing at least a portion of the stored data.
(Claim 28) wherein the [quality assurance applet is a JavaCard applet] installed and securely executed by the [processing circuitry on the transaction card], the transaction card being a [smart card or other device having limited memory].
(Claim 29) wherein the [processing circuitry, memory, and the EMV interface are integrated with or electrically coupled to a contact pad assembly conforming to ISO/IEC 7816 standard, the contact pad assembly enabling communication in accordance with the EMV protocol via the EMV interface].
(Claim 30) wherein the [memory] is further configured to store one or more counters, and wherein the [quality assurance applet] is configured to increment at least one counter each time a read operation for the stored data occurs.
(Claim 32) wherein acquiring specific data elements further comprises obtaining at least one of: a unique transaction attempt identifier, either received from the transaction terminal or generated internally by the processing circuitry of the transaction card; and/or a terminal identification code corresponding to the transaction terminal, extracted from the data exchange with the transaction terminal.
(Claim 33) wherein the [quality assurance applet] is pre-configured as a default application on the transaction card through an installation process that sets a default parameter, causing the quality assurance applet to be automatically selected or prioritized for execution by a [transaction terminal]’s application selection logic during the transaction attempt.
(Claim 34) receiving, by the quality assurance applet via the [NFC interface], a data retrieval command from an external [mobile computing device]; and
responsive to the data retrieval command, accessing the recorded specific data elements from the log structure in memory and transmitting said elements to the external mobile computing device via the [NFC interface], for subsequent forwarding by the mobile computing device to a remote transaction analysis system.
(Claim 35) prior to transmitting the recorded specific data elements:
applying, by the [quality assurance applet] using the processing circuitry, an encryption process to the recorded specific data elements to generate encrypted data.
(Claim 36) wherein applying the encryption process involves utilizing a cryptographic algorithm in conjunction with a customer- specific identifier stored in the memory and a unique cryptographic key embedded within or derived by the transaction card, said key being a non-transient private key or a dynamically generated session key.
(Claim 37) wherein transmitting said elements to the external mobile computing device comprises formatting, by the quality assurance applet, the recorded specific data elements into one or more [NFC Data Exchange Format (NDEF) messages], each NDEF message encapsulating one or more data records, with each record comprising a header defining at least a record type and payload size, and a payload carrying at least a portion of the recorded specific data elements.
(Claim 38) maintaining, within the [memory of the transaction card], one or more transaction counters; and
incrementing, by the [quality assurance applet], at least one of the one or more transaction counters upon each successful read operation of the recorded specific data elements, said incremented counter value serving as a defense mechanism against replay attacks or as a synchronization aid for a remote data validation server.
(Claim 39) wherein the [quality assurance applet is implemented as a JavaCard applet, which is securely loaded and executed by the processing circuitry within a trusted execution environment of the transaction card, the transaction card being a secure smart card device with constrained memory resources].
(Claim 40) wherein the [EMV interface is physically embodied as part of a contact pad structure on the transaction card adhering to the ISO/IEC 7816 specifications, said contact pad structure facilitating robust electrical contact and standardized EMV protocol communication with the transaction terminal].
– recite a combination of abstract ideas including Mathematical Concepts (cryptographic algorithm), Mental Process, and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
See MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]
B. Evaluating Claims Reciting Multiple Judicial Exceptions
A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.
See also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 21-40 recite multiple judicial exceptions.
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 element(s) recited in the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a transaction card comprising a substrate, processing circuitry, and memory; a quality assurance applet; one or more interfaces including NFC or EMV interface, and configured to couple with transaction terminals; JavaCard applet which is securely loaded and executed by the processing circuitry within a trusted execution environment of the transaction card, the transaction card being a secure smart card device with constrained memory resources; contact pad assembly.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, the MPEP suggests the following consideration:
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 have been recited in a result-focused and functional way lacking in technical details such they cover any solution to an identified problem:
detect an initiation of a transaction attempt automatically upon the transaction card entering the magnetic field of a transaction terminal … (claims 21, 31)
wherein the quality assurance applet is configured as default application on the transaction card by being installed with a default parameter set, thereby making it selectable or selected default by a transaction terminals’ application selection process upon detection of the transaction attempt (claim 23)
wherein the quality assurance applet is configured to increment at least one counter each time a read operation for the stored data occurs (claim 26)
wherein the quality assurance applet is pre-configured as a default application on the transaction card through an installation process that sets a default parameter, causing the quality assurance applet to be automatically selected or prioritized for execution by a transaction terminal's application selection logic during the transaction attempt (claim 33)
incrementing, by the quality assurance applet, at least one of the more transaction counters upon each successful read operation of the recorded specific data elements, said incremented counter value serving a defense mechanism against relay attacks or as a synchronization aid for a remote data validation server (claim 38)
All purported inventive concepts reside in how the ‘detect initiation of a transaction attempt,’ ‘making it selectable or selected by default,’ ‘causing the quality assurance applet to be automatically selected or prioritized for execution,’ ‘serving a defense mechanism against relay attacks’ etc., are technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically achieves the result which neither the specification or the drawings shed any light on. See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”); see Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 952-53, 954-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Instead of focusing on the technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example, claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”).
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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of limitations – detect an initiation of a transaction attempt automatically upon the transaction card entering a magnetic field of a transaction terminal or during an initiation of an EMV data exchange with the transaction terminal via at least one of the one or more interfaces; determine, in response to the detected transaction attempt, data associated with the transaction attempt, the data including at least an interface type identifier indicating which of the one or more interfaces was used for the transaction attempt and a timestamp derived from a clock of the transaction card or from the data received from the transaction terminal; and store the data associated with the transaction attempt within a dedicated data structure in the memory of the transaction card, thereby creating a log of transaction attempts directly on the transaction card for subsequent retrieval and analysis – 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.” See MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019] (“vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – detecting transaction attempts – that merely use applet as a tool. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility.
Therefore, when considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For the above reasons, 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 claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – detect an initiation of a transaction attempt automatically upon the transaction card entering a magnetic field of a transaction terminal or during an initiation of an EMV data exchange with the transaction terminal via at least one of the one or more interfaces; determine, in response to the detected transaction attempt, data associated with the transaction attempt, the data including at least an interface type identifier indicating which of the one or more interfaces was used for the transaction attempt and a timestamp derived from a clock of the transaction card or from the data received from the transaction terminal; and store the data associated with the transaction attempt within a dedicated data structure in the memory of the transaction card, thereby creating a log of transaction attempts directly on the transaction card for subsequent retrieval and analysis – 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues (pages 8-10 of remarks, 5/15/2026) that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but are focused on technical improvement to the functioning of a transaction card.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth in Prong 1 above, the independent claims 21 and 31 recite a combination of abstract ideas. Detecting an initiation of a transaction attempt upon a transaction card entering a magnetic field of a transaction terminal – is a precursor to a potential Commercial/Legal Interaction and can also be considered pre-solution data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05 (g) (“all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output”). Similarly, creating a log of transaction attempts by storing data associated with transaction attempt in memory is mere data gathering activity.
Fig. 8 illustrates an example of data corresponding to transaction attempts for a transaction card.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the determination of which one of the interfaces was used for transaction attempt involves observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion based on the chart of Fig. 8. For example, an inspection of Row 808 indicates that a transaction was attempted on Sun Sep 11 at 20:23:50 UTC; however no actual transaction took place. Next, an inspection of the Row 810 shows a successful transaction at on the same date but at 20:37:23 UTC which appears to indicate that the user attempted to perform a transaction via the contactless interface, but the transaction attempt failed, subsequently the user utilized a contact interface to perform the transaction (para [0075]). The transaction system may determine that this pattern indicates that there is an anomaly or issue with the contactless interface of the transaction card and/or of the transaction terminal. The issue may be that the customer is incorrectly using the contactless interface, the terminal is incorrectly configured, or that there is a malfunction with one of or both of the card and terminal (para [0075]). The failure and/or success of a financial transaction using a contactless as well as contact terminal falls under Commercial/Legal Interactions. Ascertaining causes for failure of a transction involves observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Moreover, “[i]nformation as such is an intangible” and collecting, analyzing (e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset), and displaying that information, without more, is an abstract idea. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and citing similar decisions holding that displaying different types or sets of information from various sources on a generic display is abstract absent a specific improvement to the way computers or other technologies operate); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information … is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”).
Hence, the limitation “determine, in response to the detected transaction attempt, data associated with the transaction attempt, the data including at least an interface type identifier indicating which of the one or more interfaces was used for the transaction attempt and a timestamp derived from a clock of the transaction card or from the data received from the transaction terminal” falls under the Mental Process as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity groupings of abstract ideas. To assert that the steps cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper is not persuasive because, as noted above, an analyst can view Fig. 8 and determine which transaction attempt failed and which succeeded. The quality assurance applet is merely an additional element that is used as a tool determine which interface was used for transction attempt and may be defective. At best the claimed invention is an improvement to organizing human activity in that repairing or fixing faulty terminals will not frustrate potential customers transactions and instead smooth the path of commerce. But it does not improve the quality assurance applet or any other technology.
For the above reasons, the Applicant cannot reasonably deny that the independent claims 21 and 31 are directed to a combination of abstract ideas. Inspecting transction log to identify potential causes of transaction failure and/or subsequent success may help notify customers and operators of transaction terminals (para [0019]) but this does not represent technical improvement. In fact, Examiner points out that the Applicant’s own statement (page 10 of remarks, 5/15/2026) – The invention provides a system to “collect data associated with each transaction attempt” to “detect failures.” Id. – further confirms that the independent claims are directed to “data gathering” as opposed to bringing about any improvements in the functioning of computers. Similarly, the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to logging data on the card to perform on-board quality assurance logging (pages 9, 11 of remarks, 5/15/2026), are unpersuasive because they merely limit the abstract idea of data logging to a particular technological environment. The so-called “black hole” of information preventing card issuers and terminal operators from rectifying hardware and software failures (page 9 of remarks, 5/15/2026) – is investigated by gathering transaction log data and reviewing the logs to prevent transaction failures. See MPEP 2106.05 (h) (“iv. Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”)
Applicant argues (pages 10-12 of remarks, 5/15/2026) that the claims improve computer functionality through an unconventional, self-contained diagnostic tool, and specific technical implementations for a resource-constrained environment.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive primarily because, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the independent claims are lacking in technical details for the limitation “detect an initiation of a transaction attempt automatically upon the transaction card entering a magnetic field of a transaction terminal or during initiation of an EMV data exchange with the transaction terminal.” As noted in Prong 2, all purported inventive concepts reside in how the “detect initiation of a transaction attempt” is technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically achieves the result which neither the specification or the drawings shed any light on. See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”); see Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 952-53, 954-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Instead of focusing on the technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example, claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”). For the above reasons, the Applicant’s argument (page 10 of remarks, 5/15/2026) – the claims provide the specific “how to” that the PTAB found lacking in the parent case – is unpersuasive.
Improvement to the abstract idea or data gathering activity does not constitute technical improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field II (“However, it is important to keep in mind that 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.”). Here, the claims may improve the abstract idea of identifying transaction terminals that may have malfunctioned causing either failed transactions or delayed transactions using other channels. While fixing fault terminals may smooth commerce, it has nothing to do with improving computers or technology. Neither of the transaction card, applet or NFC/EMV terminal or has been improved by the claimed steps. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.”). Like Electric Power, the purported advance in the claims is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. For the above reasons, the Applicant’s assertion (page 8 of remarks, 5/15/2026) – that the claims are focused on a specific technical improvement to the functioning of a transaction card – are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 12-15 of remarks, 5/15/2026) that the dependent claims add technical limitations that underscore the technological nature of the invention, e.g., Java Card Applet, NDEF messages.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive. For example, the Applicant’s assertion that capturing data elements such as transaction identifier and terminal identifier in claims 22 and 32 provides crucial context for diagnosing failure points and identifying root causes – does not alter the fact that this is mere data gathering activity. See for example, an application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.
Applicant does not contend to have invented the various additional elements recited in the claims. Java Card Applet was developed by Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) two decades ago and merely serves as an additional element in claims 28 and 39 on which software logic is loaded and executed as per para [0031] (“The one or more applet(s) 308 may comprise one or more software applications configured to execute on one or more contactless cards, such as a Java® Card applet”). See NPL Developing a Java Card Applet. The EMV (Europay Mastercard and Visa) standard was first published in 1996. In 2004, Nokia, Philips and Sony established the NFC Forum. In addition, NFC Forum defined a common data format called NFC Data Exchange Format (NDEF) that can store and transport items ranging from any MIME-typed object to ultra-short RTD-documents,[69] such as URLs. See NPL Near-field communication.
Examiner thus notes that the limitations recited in claims 22-30, 32-40 merely consist of instructions to implement abstract ideas as described in Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or perform pre and post solution data gathering activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)) using ISO/IEC industry standard physical hardware such that the claim limitations amount to no more than limiting abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Claims 21-40 do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). The additional elements amount to no more than Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Hence, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea 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 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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
Prosecution Insights