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 .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication
received on 8/3/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 2, 8-9, 15-16 and 21
Canceled claims: 1
Added New claims: 2-21
Pending claims: 2-21
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims do not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 2-21 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed to a method (claim 2), a system (claim 9) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16). Therefore on its face, claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 2, 9 and 16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 2 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) generating, a client token using transaction information for a secure transaction and data describing a merchant system, wherein the client token is associated with postback data; (ii) establishing a secure communication channel between, wherein the secure communication channel bypasses the merchant system, and wherein client information transmitted via the secure communication channel is inaccessible to the merchant system; (iii) transmitting, via the secure communication channel, the client token, wherein when the client token is received, the client token is used to verify the merchant system; (iv) receiving, via the secure communication channel, an account communication that is associated with the client token and includes the client information; (v) facilitating, using a dynamic decision algorithm processing of the secure transaction based on the account communication, wherein the dynamic decision algorithm identifies a plurality of installment offers associated with the secure transaction based on the transaction information; (vi) transmitting, via the secure communication channel, the plurality of installment offers; (vii) receiving, a status inquiry associated with the secure transaction; (viii) processing the status inquiry to determine that the merchant system associated with the status inquiry has been previously validated and that the status inquiry is from the merchant system; (ix) accessing a tokenized client account number; and (x) processing the tokenized client account number to facilitate access to status data of the secure transaction under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting an account security system and a client device nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
These “methods of organizing human activity” are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular the claim recites the following additional elements of, an account security system and a client device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – an account security system and a client device.
The account security system and client device are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using, an account security system and a client device, generating, a client token using transaction information for a secure transaction and data describing a merchant system, wherein the client token is associated with postback data; establishing a secure communication channel between, wherein the secure communication channel bypasses the merchant system, and wherein client information transmitted via the secure communication channel is inaccessible to the merchant system; transmitting, via the secure communication channel, the client token, wherein when the client token is received, the client token is used to verify the merchant system; receiving, via the secure communication channel, an account communication that is associated with the client token and includes the client information; facilitating, using a dynamic decision algorithm processing of the secure transaction based on the account communication, wherein the dynamic decision algorithm identifies a plurality of installment offers associated with the secure transaction based on the transaction information; transmitting, via the secure communication channel, the plurality of installment offers; receiving, a status inquiry associated with the secure transaction; processing the status inquiry to determine that the merchant system associated with the status inquiry has been previously validated and that the status inquiry is from the merchant system; accessing a tokenized client account number; and processing the tokenized client account number to facilitate access to status data of the secure transaction, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-21 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states the claims recite “a specific set of ordered steps that go beyond the abstract idea” and provide “a technical solution to a security problem in networks and computers” (page 10) and that “the express limitations of claim 2 recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and establish patent eligibility under § 101” (page 11). The Examiner disagrees with these sentences because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. The Invention is a business solution to the business problem of keeping sensitive client data secure. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details to the abstract idea. They do not address a problem particular to computer networks and merely apply the abstract idea on general computer components. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and keeping sensitive client data secure via a secure communication channel that bypasses an entity (e.g., a merchant) is common and is not an unconventional activity. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the specification. Therefore, this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
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 MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights