DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on January 6, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 21, 24, and 27-40 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 21-40.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant’s claims use the following terms that do not occur in the specification in the context in which they are claims. As such, the examiner has interpreted these terms in light of similar terms found in the applicant’s specification and/or their common definitions:
Link/linking: related to in some manner or form, such as storing data in a database that allows a relationship to be determined (applicant’s specification paragraphs 73-74; the examiner notes that if the applicant intends for the claimed link/linking to be other than the interpretation above they are required to point to the specific recitation in the specification that supports a different interpretation including the specific term used in the specification)
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on January 6, 2026 has overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections raised in the office action dated October 6, 2025. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on January 6, 2026 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections raised in the office action dated October 6, 2025. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims herein are directed to a system, method and computer program product 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).
However, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 21, 28, and 35 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
processing a plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users; and
transmitting the plurality of processed authorization messages;
receiving transaction data associated with a transaction initiated by a user of the plurality of users at a first merchant located within a geofenced area at a first location, the transaction data included within an authorization message processed over the multi-party processing network;
receiving, in real-time from a mobile computing device associated with the user via a computer network different from the multi-party processing network, a current location of the user, the current location provided by location services executing on the mobile computing device;
determining, using the transaction data and a user profile associated with the user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of the first merchant and the user profile;
identifying, in response to the current location of the user being within the geofenced area, from a lookup, a second merchant having a second location within the geofenced area and belonging to the recommended merchant category;
generating a notification message including data associated with one or more incentive offers offered by the second merchant; and
pushing, in real-time via the computer network, the notification message to the mobile computing device.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions that are advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements at least one host computing device comprising at least one processor, a memory, and a database (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components); and a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components:).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
processing a plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users (processing data); and
transmitting the plurality of processed authorization messages (transmitting data);
receiving transaction data associated with a transaction initiated by a user of the plurality of users at a first merchant located within a geofenced area at a first location, the transaction data included within an authorization message processed over the multi-party processing network (receiving data);
receiving, in real-time from a mobile computing device associated with the user via a computer network different from the multi-party processing network, a current location of the user, the current location provided by location services executing on the mobile computing device (receiving data); and
pushing, in real-time via the computer network, the notification message to the mobile computing device (transmitting data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating, storing, and/or displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using at least one host computing device comprising at least one processor, a memory, and a database (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components); and a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general-purpose computers with generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (as evidenced from paragraphs 33-34, 36-38, 120-121 and figures 4-5 of the applicant’s specification which depict general purpose computers and databases used in the system; and the Affinity v DirecTV decision which discloses that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
processing a plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users (processing data); and
transmitting the plurality of processed authorization messages (transmitting data);
receiving transaction data associated with a transaction initiated by a user of the plurality of users at a first merchant located within a geofenced area at a first location, the transaction data included within an authorization message processed over the multi-party processing network (receiving data);
receiving, in real-time from a mobile computing device associated with the user via a computer network different from the multi-party processing network, a current location of the user, the current location provided by location services executing on the mobile computing device (receiving data); and
pushing, in real-time via the computer network, the notification message to the mobile computing device (transmitting data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding an additional step of receiving a request to enroll which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 22, 29, and 36); adding the additional steps of: linking the first merchant and the second merchant as part of an incentive which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 23, 30, and 37); adding an additional step of receiving an authorization message which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 24, 31, and 38); adding the additional step of performing a lookup upon receiving the transaction data which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 25, 32, and 39); adding the additional step of comparing the current location of the user to the geofenced area which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 26, 33, and 40); and adding additional processing and transmitting steps which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 27 and 34), and therefore only limit the application of the abstract idea and are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes), and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock et al. (US Patent Number: US 10,949,888) in view of Dutta et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0073669) in further view of Harkey et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0279123)
Claims 21-22, 24, 27-29, 31, 34-36, and 38: Brock discloses an electronic processing system, a computer-implemented method, and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising:
a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor configured to: process a plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users; and transmit the plurality of processed authorization messages to at least one host computing device; and
Brock discloses transmitting the plurality of processed transaction messages to the at least one host computing device in at least column 10, line 62 through column 11, line 22; column 14, lines 33-49; and column 15, lines 14-39 where he discloses receiving transaction data associated with a transaction initiated by a user at a first merchant located within a geofenced area at a first location, wherein the transaction data is received from a remote computer system that facilitates one or more point-of-sale devices of a merchant in at least.
Brock does not disclose the transaction data is included within an authorization message or that the multi-party processing network comprises a network processor that process the plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users; and transmit the plurality of processed authorization messages to at least one host computing device.
However, the analogous art of Dutta discloses that it is known for a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor to process the plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users; and transmit the plurality of processed authorization messages to at least one host computing device in at least paragraphs 41 and 56-58 73, and 93.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Brock such that the remote computer system that facilitates one or more point-of-sale devices of a merchant is a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor configured to: process a plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users; and transmit the plurality of processed authorization messages to at least one host computing device as disclosed by Dutta.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught by either Brock or Dutta. The transactions data being included with an authorization message processed over a multi-party processing network, wherein a network processor of the multi-party processing network processes and transmits the authorization message on behalf of the merchant (taught by Dutta) does not change nor effect the normal functions for which transaction data is used in the invention of Brock. The invention would still receive the transaction data, and generate notifications messages and push the notification message in the same way even with the transaction data being included with an authorization message processed over a multi-party processing network. Since the functionalities of the elements in Brock and Dutta do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
at least one host computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory device (Brock - Column 20 lines 1-28 and column 21 lines 15-30: computer system performing claimed function includes one or more processors and one or more memories; Column 12, lines 32-35: the financial account manager communicates with a financial system that facilitates the financial institution associated with the customer's financial account Figure 1: multiple merchants in the system) configure to:
receiving a request to enroll the first merchant in an incentive service, the request including the geofenced area that includes at least the first location of the first merchant;
Brock and Dutta, as currently combined, discloses receiving, from a merchant computing device associated with a first merchant, a request to enroll in an incentive service, the request including at least a first location of the first merchant (Brock - Column 13 lines 23-58: the promotion system establishes a relationship between multiple merchants for the generation and processing of promotions ("promotion relationship"); the established relationship can be, for example, one factor of a set of factors considered by the promotion system when generating the promotion; the promotion system provides an interface that allows different merchants to connect with one another to establish the promotion relationships; the promotion system provides an interface that allows a particular merchant to register with the promotion system to establish a promotion relationship with any merchant(s); once a promotion relationship is established (e.g., a merchant either registers to indicate interest in the promotion program or to indicate specific merchants with whom to participate in the program), the promotion system can facilitate the generation and/or redemption of the promotion between the different merchants).
Brock and Dutta, as currently combined, do not disclose that the request includes a geofenced area that includes at least a first location of the first merchant.
However, the analogous art of Harkey discloses that it is known for a merchant request to include a geofenced area that includes at least a first location of a first merchant in at least paragraphs 54-57.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the request in invention of Brock and Dutta to include a geofenced area that includes at least a first location of the first merchant as disclosed by Harkey.
The motivation for doing so it to create a define area which allow users and merchants to exchange pertinent information prior to the user arrival at a merchant. (Harkey: Paragraphs 1 and 70)
receiving, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system and in real-time from a mobile computing device associated with the user via a computer network different from the multi-party processing network, a current location of the user, the current location provided by location services executing on the mobile computing device;
Brock, Dutta, and Harkey, as currently combined, disclose receiving a current location of the user based on the transaction data in at least column 10, line 62 through column 11, line 45 (The promotion system receives transaction data and parses it to determine a payment card number (cardholder identifier) and location data indicating a transaction location where the transaction was initiated) and column 2, lines 43-64 and (once the promotion system has identified the spending trend, it selects, from a specified group of merchants, a second merchant that (a) is located within a specified distance from the geographical location of the first merchant location and (b) provides products and/or services correlating to the spending trend of the customer; the promotion system then generates a promotion for that second merchant and includes that promotion in a receipt for the first transaction) of Brock.
Brock, Dutta and Harkey, as currently combined, do not disclose that the current location of the user is received, in real-time from a mobile computing device associated with the user via a computer network different from the multi-party processing network, the current location provided by location services executing on the mobile computing device.
However, the analogous art of Harkey discloses that it is well known to receive, in real-time from a mobile computing device associated with the user via a computer network different from the multi-party processing network, the current location provided by location services executing on the mobile computing device in paragraphs 45 and 46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include the ability to determine the current location of the cardholder using location services of the mobile computing device as disclosed by Harkey in the invention of Brock, Dutta, and Harkey as currently combined.
The rational for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can clearly be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Brock, Dutta, and Harkey as currently combined or Harkey. Determining the current location of the user using location services of the mobile computing device (taught by Harkey) does not change nor effect the normal functions of providing promotions based on transactions as taught by Brock, Dutta and Harkey as currently combined. Comparing the current location of the user to the first location of the second merchant; and determining, based on the comparison, whether the current location of the user is within the geofenced area would still be able to be performed in the same way in that it is still based on the location of the user. Since the functionalities of the elements do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
determining, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system and using the transaction data and a user profile associated with the user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of the first merchant and the user profile;
Brock, Dutta, and Harkey, as currently combined, do not disclose determining, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system and using the transaction data and a user profile associated with the user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of the first merchant and the user profile.
However, the analogous art of Dutta discloses that it is well known to determining, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system and using the transaction data and a user profile associated with the user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of the first merchant and the user profile. in paragraphs 51-55, 81, 83, 86 and 93-108.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include the ability to determine, using the transaction data and a user profile associated with the user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of the first merchant and the user profile as disclosed by Dutta in the invention of Brock, Dutta, and Harkey as currently combined.
The rational for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can clearly be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Brock, Dutta, and Harkey as currently combined or Dutta. Determining, using the transaction data and a user profile associated with the user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of the first merchant and the user profile (taught by Dutta) does not change nor effect the normal functions of providing promotions based on transactions as taught by Brock, Dutta and Harkey as currently combined. Since the functionalities of the elements do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
in response to the current location of the user being within the geofenced area, identifying, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system and from a lookup within a database, a second merchant having a second location within the geofenced area and belonging to the recommended merchant category (Brock - Column 9 lines 21-32: the system generates a receipt for the first transaction and adds the promotion for the second merchant to the receipt based on analyzing the data associated with the set of factors; Column 2 lines 29-64: system determines spending trend by identifying the specific purchase in the first transaction and an identifier associated with the customer; using the payment card number the system identifies all other past purchase and correlates them with the current purchase item; one the spending trend is identified, the system selects from a specified group of merchants that is located within a specified distance from the geographical location of the first merchant and provides products correlated to the spending trend of the customer; Column 14, lines 15-32: the system receives an indication that a first transaction has occurred at a first merchant location of a first merchant which facilitates the generation and redemption of promotions; Column 10 lines 19-28, the promotion system also includes a user account database, a financial account database, and a transaction history database, all of which operate as storage for various data utilized by the promotion system in facilitating the generation and processing of promotions (e.g., data associated with a set of factors that are correlated to determine the what, when, where, and how to generate the promotion); Column 13 lines 25-44: the established relationship can be one factor of a set of factors considered by the promotion system when generating the promotion; the different merchants can choose to establish the promotion relationships between specific merchants with merchant locations that are geographically proximate ( e.g., two franchise merchants with stores that are located in the same downtown area); the promotion system can identify potential merchants to establish the relationships as recommendations displayed ( e.g., via the interface) to the different merchants ( e.g., to select and establish a promotion relationship); the potential other merchants can be geographically proximate merchants or those located in a different geographical area that offer services and/or goods that are complementary to the particular merchant; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the promotion system can then correlate various data associated with one or more factors in a set of factors to decide the "what, when, where, and how" for generating the promotion; the set of factors can include, for example, a spending trend, a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius), a specified low-customer-volume time of day to send out the promotions (e.g., predicted off-peak hours for a merchant), a current time of day at which a current transaction takes place ("timestamp") (e.g., a merchant currently experiencing low customer volume is promoted), the demographics of target customers (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) to offer in the promotion (e.g., particular items are promoted based on an inventory surplus), promotional value of the promotion ( e.g., dollar amount, percentage, or free item), the selected set of merchants that have requested for the service from the promotion system (e.g., only five merchants in the area have signed up to have promotions about them be placed in other merchants' receipts); the particular merchant can request, or specify, promotion criteria to be taken into consideration by the promotion system for generating the promotion; the particular merchant can specify the target customer demographics desired by the particular merchant (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) that the particular merchant is willing to offer a promotion, the promotional value, the specified time of low customer volume ( e.g., unusually slow traffic between the hours of 10 AM and 2 PM), the target merchant location (e.g., a merchant has different coffee shop locations); the promotion system incorporates the promotion criteria received from all merchants in the set of selected merchants as factors in its own set of factors to generate the promotion; Column 5 lines 43 - Column 6 lines 21: the factors include a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius); and Dutta – Paragraphs 51-55, 81, 83, 86 and 93-108: the recommendation is for a merchant belonging to a specific merchant category);
generating, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system, a notification message including data associated with one or more incentive offers offered by the second merchant (Brock - Column 9 lines 21-32: the system generates a receipt for the first transaction and adds the promotion for the second merchant to the receipt based on analyzing the data associated with the set of factors; Column 2 lines 29-64 and Column 5, lines 10-42: system determines spending trend by identifying the specific purchase in the first transaction and an identifier associated with the customer; using the payment card number the system identifies all other past purchase and correlates them with the current purchase item; one the spending trend is identified, the system selects from a specified group of merchants that is located within a specified distance from the geographical location of the first merchant and provides products correlated to the spending trend of the customer; and Column 17, lines 63: the promotion system generates the promotion in the form of a promotion identifier such as a bar code or QR code); and
pushing, by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system and in real-time via the computer network, the notification message to the mobile computing device. (Brock - column 17, lines 31-63: the promotion with the QR code associated with a product of the second merchant is sent to the promotion mobile application of the customers)
Claims 23, 30 and 37: Brock, Harkey, and Dutta disclose the electronic processing system of claim 22, the computer-implemented method of claim 29, and the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the at least one processor of the at least host computing system is further configured to link, within the database, the first merchant and the second merchant as part of the incentive service, the linking including at least the geofenced area that includes at least the first location of the first merchant and the first location of the second merchant. (Brock: Column 2, lines 43-64: once the promotion system has identified the spending trend, it selects, from a specified group of merchants, a second merchant that (a) is located within a specified distance from the geographical location of the first merchant location and (b) provides products and/or services correlating to the spending trend of the customer; the promotion system then generates a promotion for that second merchant and includes that promotion in a receipt for the first transaction; Column 12, line 55 though Column 13, line 8: the promotion system facilitates establishing, maintaining, and configuring the promotion-related relationships between the different merchants by providing, for example, a web interface allowing merchants to connect with (e.g., invite, search, advertise, and/or otherwise locate) other geographically proximate merchants to establish the relationships; the promotion configuration engine can direct the promotion system to provide a configuration interface to a particular merchant for identifying potential other merchants to establish synergistic relationships; the potential other merchants can be geographically proximate merchants; The promotion-related relationships can specify certain criteria for generating the promotions. these criteria are received by the promotion generator, which utilizes the criteria in determining the content and/or configuration of the promotion to be generated; Column 10 lines 19-28, the promotion system also includes a user account database, a financial account database, and a transaction history database, all of which operate as storage for various data utilized by the promotion system in facilitating the generation and processing of promotions (e.g., data associated with a set of factors that are correlated to determine the what, when, where, and how to generate the promotion); Column 13 lines 25-44: the established relationship can be one factor of a set of factors considered by the promotion system when generating the promotion; the different merchants can choose to establish the promotion relationships between specific merchants with merchant locations that are geographically proximate ( e.g., two franchise merchants with stores that are located in the same downtown area); the promotion system can identify potential merchants to establish the relationships as recommendations displayed ( e.g., via the interface) to the different merchants ( e.g., to select and establish a promotion relationship); the potential other merchants can be geographically proximate merchants or those located in a different geographical area that offer services and/or goods that are complementary to the particular merchant; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the promotion system can then correlate various data associated with one or more factors in a set of factors to decide the "what, when, where, and how" for generating the promotion; the set of factors can include, for example, a spending trend, a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius), a specified low-customer-volume time of day to send out the promotions (e.g., predicted off-peak hours for a merchant), a current time of day at which a current transaction takes place ("timestamp") (e.g., a merchant currently experiencing low customer volume is promoted), the demographics of target customers (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) to offer in the promotion (e.g., particular items are promoted based on an inventory surplus), promotional value of the promotion ( e.g., dollar amount, percentage, or free item), the selected set of merchants that have requested for the service from the promotion system (e.g., only five merchants in the area have signed up to have promotions about them be placed in other merchants' receipts); the particular merchant can request, or specify, promotion criteria to be taken into consideration by the promotion system for generating the promotion; the particular merchant can specify the target customer demographics desired by the particular merchant (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) that the particular merchant is willing to offer a promotion, the promotional value, the specified time of low customer volume ( e.g., unusually slow traffic between the hours of 10 AM and 2 PM), the target merchant location (e.g., a merchant has different coffee shop locations); the promotion system incorporates the promotion criteria received from all merchants in the set of selected merchants as factors in its own set of factors to generate the promotion; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the factors include a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius))
Claims 25, 32, and 39: Brock, Harkey, and Dutta disclose the electronic processing system of claim 21, the computer-implemented method of claim 28, and the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 35, wherein the by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system is further configured to perform a lookup, within the database in real-time, upon receiving the transaction data from the authorization message, for a link between the first merchant and the second merchant. (Brock - Column 9 lines 21-32: the system generates a receipt for the first transaction and adds the promotion for the second merchant to the receipt based on analyzing the data associated with the set of factors; Column 2 lines 29-64: system determines spending trend by identifying the specific purchase in the first transaction and an identifier associated with the customer; using the payment card number the system identifies all other past purchase and correlates them with the current purchase item; one the spending trend is identified, the system selects from a specified group of merchants that is located within a specified distance from the geographical location of the first merchant and provides products correlated to the spending trend of the customer; Column 14, lines 15-32: the system receives an indication that a first transaction has occurred at a first merchant location of a first merchant which facilitates the generation and redemption of promotions; Brock - Column 10 lines 19-28, the promotion system also includes a user account database, a financial account database, and a transaction history database, all of which operate as storage for various data utilized by the promotion system in facilitating the generation and processing of promotions (e.g., data associated with a set of factors that are correlated to determine the what, when, where, and how to generate the promotion); Column 13 lines 25-44: the established relationship can be one factor of a set of factors considered by the promotion system when generating the promotion; the different merchants can choose to establish the promotion relationships between specific merchants with merchant locations that are geographically proximate ( e.g., two franchise merchants with stores that are located in the same downtown area); the promotion system can identify potential merchants to establish the relationships as recommendations displayed ( e.g., via the interface) to the different merchants ( e.g., to select and establish a promotion relationship); the potential other merchants can be geographically proximate merchants or those located in a different geographical area that offer services and/or goods that are complementary to the particular merchant; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the promotion system can then correlate various data associated with one or more factors in a set of factors to decide the "what, when, where, and how" for generating the promotion; the set of factors can include, for example, a spending trend, a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius), a specified low-customer-volume time of day to send out the promotions (e.g., predicted off-peak hours for a merchant), a current time of day at which a current transaction takes place ("timestamp") (e.g., a merchant currently experiencing low customer volume is promoted), the demographics of target customers (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) to offer in the promotion (e.g., particular items are promoted based on an inventory surplus), promotional value of the promotion ( e.g., dollar amount, percentage, or free item), the selected set of merchants that have requested for the service from the promotion system (e.g., only five merchants in the area have signed up to have promotions about them be placed in other merchants' receipts); the particular merchant can request, or specify, promotion criteria to be taken into consideration by the promotion system for generating the promotion; the particular merchant can specify the target customer demographics desired by the particular merchant (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) that the particular merchant is willing to offer a promotion, the promotional value, the specified time of low customer volume ( e.g., unusually slow traffic between the hours of 10 AM and 2 PM), the target merchant location (e.g., a merchant has different coffee shop locations); the promotion system incorporates the promotion criteria received from all merchants in the set of selected merchants as factors in its own set of factors to generate the promotion; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the factors include a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius))
Claims 26, 33, and 40: Brock, Harkey, and Dutta disclose the electronic processing system of claim 21, the computer-implemented method of claim 28, and the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 35, wherein by the at least one processor of the at least host computing system is further configured to compare the current location of the user to the geofenced area; Column 2, lines 43-64: once the promotion system has identified the spending trend, it selects, from a specified group of merchants, a second merchant that (a) is located within a specified distance from the geographical location of the first merchant location and (b) provides products and/or services correlating to the spending trend of the customer; the promotion system then generates a promotion for that second merchant and includes that promotion in a receipt for the first transaction; (Brock - Column 10 lines 19-28, the promotion system also includes a user account database, a financial account database, and a transaction history database, all of which operate as storage for various data utilized by the promotion system in facilitating the generation and processing of promotions (e.g., data associated with a set of factors that are correlated to determine the what, when, where, and how to generate the promotion); Column 13 lines 25-44: the established relationship can be one factor of a set of factors considered by the promotion system when generating the promotion; the different merchants can choose to establish the promotion relationships between specific merchants with merchant locations that are geographically proximate ( e.g., two franchise merchants with stores that are located in the same downtown area); the promotion system can identify potential merchants to establish the relationships as recommendations displayed ( e.g., via the interface) to the different merchants ( e.g., to select and establish a promotion relationship); the potential other merchants can be geographically proximate merchants or those located in a different geographical area that offer services and/or goods that are complementary to the particular merchant; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the promotion system can then correlate various data associated with one or more factors in a set of factors to decide the "what, when, where, and how" for generating the promotion; the set of factors can include, for example, a spending trend, a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius), a specified low-customer-volume time of day to send out the promotions (e.g., predicted off-peak hours for a merchant), a current time of day at which a current transaction takes place ("timestamp") (e.g., a merchant currently experiencing low customer volume is promoted), the demographics of target customers (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) to offer in the promotion (e.g., particular items are promoted based on an inventory surplus), promotional value of the promotion ( e.g., dollar amount, percentage, or free item), the selected set of merchants that have requested for the service from the promotion system (e.g., only five merchants in the area have signed up to have promotions about them be placed in other merchants' receipts); the particular merchant can request, or specify, promotion criteria to be taken into consideration by the promotion system for generating the promotion; the particular merchant can specify the target customer demographics desired by the particular merchant (e.g., teenagers, males between 22-30, working professionals, shoe aficionados, etc.), the target item(s) that the particular merchant is willing to offer a promotion, the promotional value, the specified time of low customer volume ( e.g., unusually slow traffic between the hours of 10 AM and 2 PM), the target merchant location (e.g., a merchant has different coffee shop locations); the promotion system incorporates the promotion criteria received from all merchants in the set of selected merchants as factors in its own set of factors to generate the promotion; Column 5 lines 43- column 6 lines 21: the factors include a predetermined distance within a geographical location (e.g., within a 5 mile radius))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1, the applicant puts forth no specific argument that the claims do not recite the identified abstract idea. Instead, the applicant merely suggests that they do not concede to the fact that the claims recited the identified abstract idea. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the applicant argues that the claims recite an improvement to another technology that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. As the applicant correctly argued, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the examiner is to considered whether the “additional elements” of a claim recite an improvement to another technology that transforms an abstract idea into a practical application. An “additional element” is defined as those elements outside the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” recited in the claim are at least one host computing device comprising at least one processor, a memory, and a database (e.g., a first general-purpose computer with generic computer components); and a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor (e.g., a second general-purpose computer with generic computer components). Considered individually, the “additional elements” are merely a first general-purpose computer upon which part of the abstract idea is merely applied and a second general-purpose computer upon which ha second part of the abstract idea is merely applied. Considered in combination the claims recite first general-purpose computer that performs every significant step of the claimed invention except the processing of authorization and a multi-party processing network computer comprising a processor (i.e., second general-purpose computer) which performs the insignificant extra-solution activity of processing authorizations and transmitting data. As currently claimed the processing of an authorization may merely require receiving a request for an authorization and transmitting the authorization and, as such, is insignificant extra-solution activity. Even if the examiner would read additional limitations into the claim such as verifying a payment card associated with the authorization request has sufficient funds to purchase an item, such a limitation would not represent any type of improvement to a multi-party processing network because performing such authorizations is a standard function of a multi-party processing network. As such, every significant step of the abstract idea which is capable of resulting in the argued improvement is being performed by the first general-purpose computer merely applying the abstract idea. According to the applicant the claimed invention addresses the following at least one of the following technical problems: (i) improving a processing of payment-by-card transactions in a multi-party payment card network; (ii) inability to localize payment-by-card transaction data for the benefit of a cardholder; (iii) inability to coordinate payment-by-card transactions between different merchants in a selected geographic area; (iv) inability to detect actual location of the cardholder to determine nearby merchants for possible payment-by-card transactions; (v) inability to directly inform a cardholder of available merchant offers for possible payment-by-card transactions within a geofenced area; (vi) inability of merchants to communicate with cardholder customers of other merchants; (vii) inability to efficiently process agreements between merchants with respect to payment-by-card transactions; (viii) inability to automate a dynamic affiliate fee payment structure for payment-by-card transactions between the same cardholders but different merchants; and (ix) inability of merchants to electronically share at least a portion of payment-by-card transaction data with other local merchants as payment-by-card transactions are made. In regards to (i) improving a processing of payment-by-card transactions in a multi-party payment card network, the claimed invention does not appear to result in such an improvement. The claims neither recite a multi-party payment card network nor require payment-by-card transactions. The only function the claimed multi-party processing network computer performs is processing authorization which is a standard function of such processing network computer. As such, it is clear the applicant’s claims do not result in the claimed improvement. In regards to (ii) inability to localize payment-by-card transaction data for the benefit of a cardholder, the claims do not require payment-by-card transaction data. The host computing system does receive location data, analyzed the location data to make determination based on the analysis and transmit advertisements based on the determinations. However, each of these functions are part of the abstract idea itself. As such, any technological solution to such a technological problem that is overcome by the applicant’s invention with regards to localizing transaction data for the benefit of the cardholder would be an improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). With regards to (iii) inability to coordinate payment-by-card transactions between different merchants in a selected geographic area the claims do not result in such an improvement. The claims recite processing a first authorization and transmitting an advertisement to a user to make them aware of an offer from a second merchant. Presumably, in hopes of the user making an additional transaction at said second merchant based on the offer. However, since this would require a second transaction that is not claimed as occurring and which is not claimed as being coordinated with the first transaction in any way, the claims cannot be said to coordinate transactions between different merchants. If any said coordinating could be said to occur, it would be rooted solely in the abstract idea itself and be an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. InvestPic). In regards to (iv) inability to detect actual location of the cardholder to determine nearby merchants for possible payment-by-card transactions, any purported improvement with regards detecting the location of the user and determining nearby merchants is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself and, as such, be an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. InvestPic). In regards to (v) inability to directly inform a cardholder of available merchant offers for possible payment-by-card transactions within a geofenced area, any purported improvement related to this is rooted solely in the abstract idea and, as such, would be an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. InvestPic). With regards to (vi) inability of merchants to communicate with cardholder customers of other merchants, the offers selected and provided to the user are part of the abstract idea itself and, as such, any such improvement is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. InvestPic). With regards to (vii) inability to efficiently process agreements between merchants with respect to payment-by-card transactions the claim do not result in an improvement of this nature as the claims do not require an agreement between merchants nor the processing of such an agreement. With regards to (viii) inability to automate a dynamic affiliate fee payment structure for payment-by-card transactions between the same cardholders but different merchants the claims do not result in such fee payments. The claims do not require an affiliate fee payment structure nor its use in a dynamic way. With regards to (ix) inability of merchants to electronically share at least a portion of payment-by-card transaction data with other local merchants as payment-by-card transactions are made, the claims do not result in an improvement associated with sharing such transaction data with other merchants. The claims do not recite nor require the sharing of such information between merchants. As such, it is clear that the applicant’s claims either do not require the argued technological solution to the technological problem or when such solutions are required by the claims they are rooted solely in the abstract idea which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer. Hence, the purported solutions are not rooted in the “additional elements” which is required for such an improvement to be capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, but instead are improvements in ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections, that the claims recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea under Step 2b because they recited generating and pushing custom electronic notifications in a manner that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The examiner disagrees. The generating and pushing of the custom electronic notification by the host computing system is the host computing system merely applying an abstract idea that generates and pushes custom electronic notifications. Since, the generating and pushing of the notification is part of the abstract idea itself, these steps are not “additional elements”. Step 2b, only requires the analysis of the “additional elements” with regards to whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Whether the abstract idea itself recites limitations which are well-understood, routine, and conventional are irrelevant to the analysis under Step 2b. As indicated in the SAP v. InvestPic decision, abstract ideas may be groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant and still be properly rejected under 35 USC 101 because any improvement to the abstract idea itself is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. As such, whether considered individually or as a whole, the additional elements of a first computer which merely performs an abstract idea associated with generating location based advertisements for a user based on a transaction and a payment processing computer which merely processes transaction authorizations as such computer typically perform is insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
With regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection the applicant argues that individually neither Brock, Harkey, or Unser disclose the newly amended limitation regarding “determining, using transaction data and a user profile associated with a user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of a first merchant and the user profile”, as well as, (b) in response to the current location of the user being within a geofenced area, identifying, from a lookup within a database, a second merchant having a second location within the geofenced area and belonging to the recommended merchant category, and (c) generating a notification message including data associated with one or more incentive offers offered by the second merchant, as recited in Claim 21. First, the examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The previous combination of Brock, Harkey, and Unser clearly disclosed (b) in response to the current location of the user being within a geofenced area, identifying, from a lookup within a database, a second merchant having a second location within the geofenced area and belonging to the recommended merchant category, and (c) generating a notification message including data associated with one or more incentive offers offered by the second merchant, as recited in Claim 21. As such, the argument with regards to the individual references not teaching these limitations are not persuasive. Second, the currently amended limitation of determining, using transaction data and a user profile associated with a user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of a first merchant and the user profile”, is taught by the Dutta reference which has replaced the Unser reference. The combination of Bork, Dutta and Harkey, in combination disclose determining, using transaction data and a user profile associated with a user, a recommended merchant category that correlates with at least one of a merchant category of a first merchant and the user profile”, as well as, (b) in response to the current location of the user being within a geofenced area, identifying, from a lookup within a database, a second merchant having a second location within the geofenced area and belonging to the recommended merchant category, and (c) generating a notification message including data associated with one or more incentive offers offered by the second merchant, as recited in Claim 21, as clearly indicated in the rejection above. As such, the applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Unser (PGPUB: 2015/0348028) which discloses a multi-party processing network comprising a network processor configured to: process a plurality of authorization messages associated with transactions initiated by a plurality of users; and transmit the plurality of processed authorization messages to the at least one host computing device.
Soon et al. (KR 20170017637) which discloses a promotion service that includes digital wallet application that receives and displays notification messages.
Fordyce, III et al. (PGPUB: 2009/0006203) which discloses receiving transaction data included within an authorization message processed over a multi-party processing network.
Okerlund (PGPUB: 2013/0080239) which discloses an electronic card processing system wherein the customer enrolls in an incentive program and allows transaction data from a plurality of financial transaction card messages from a plurality merchants to be used to generate incentives with machine readable elements that can be used at affiliated merchants within a geographic boundary.
Mitchell (PGPUB: 2017/0178174) discloses customer and merchants enrolling in a networked program for providing incentive offers to mobile devices of the customer upon authorization of a financial card transaction and based on the geographic location of the customer, wherein mobile payments and or electronic wallets can be used for payment in the transaction.
Pasquet et al. (Pay2You Places: The mobile payment with geo-location, 2014, 2014 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), pp. 211-216) which discloses a payment system that is based on smartphone geolocation functionalities and a virtual purse installed on the smartphone, wherein the payment data is validated from the phone to the payments system and the validation is provided by the payment system to the POS.
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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622