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
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 4/13/2026.
Terminal Disclaimer filed 4/13/2026 regarding US Pat. 12190377 has been filed and approved.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Do the Claims Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites an apparatus (product), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 10 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 17 recites an apparatus (product), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite a computing device configured for providing access to restricted data associated with one or more data transfers, the computing device comprising: a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions embodied thereon; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions to: provide, to a computing device in an unauthenticated state, real-time restricted data associated with an authorized restricted data access request, the authorized restricted data access request comprising data associated with a device authorization token granting the computing device authenticated access to the real-time restricted data when the computing device is in an unauthenticated state, the real-time restricted data being data that, absent the device authorization token, can only be accessed by a computing device in an authenticated state, the data associated with the device authorization token indicating that the computing device is authorized to receive the real-time restricted data; provide a data transfer prompt; in response to a positive response to the data transfer prompt, cause, using intelligent deep linking, a local platform at the computing device or a remote platform at a remote device to be launched to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data, pre-populated data transfer details for conducting the related authenticated data transfer on the computing device using the local platform or on the remote device using the remote platform. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. . Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device, non-transient computer readable storage medium, one or more hardware processors, one or more processors, device authorization token, local platform, remote device, data transfer prompt, local platform at the computing device, remote platform at a remote device, and remote platform. The additional elements of a computing device, non-transient computer readable storage medium, one or more hardware processors, one or more processors, device authorization token, local platform, remote device, data transfer prompt, local platform at the computing device, remote platform at a remote device, and remote platform, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (computing device, non-transient computer readable storage medium, one or more hardware processors, one or more processors, device authorization token, local platform, remote device, data transfer prompt, local platform at the computing device, remote platform at a remote device, and remote platform) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: obtain the device authorization token based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a customer of an institution, or based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a non-customer authorized to receive the real-time restricted data from the institution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, device authorization token, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: in response to a determination that the computing device is configured to conduct the related authenticated data transfer, generate a local set of pre-populated data transfer details as the pre-populated data transfer details for completing the related authenticated data transfer on the local platform on the computing device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, and local platform on the computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: identify a remote device configured to conduct the related data transfer and on which a user associated with the computing device is known to have been previously authenticated; generate a remote set of pre-populated data transfer details as the pre-populated data transfer details for conducting the related authenticated data transfer on the remote device; provide the remote set of pre-populated data transfer details to the remote platform on the remote device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, remote platform on the remote device, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: display, at a display associated with the computing device, a visual representation associated with the real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, device authorization token, remote device, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of display and visual representation are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: provide the data transfer prompt as a visual data transfer indicator on a display associated with the computing device; in response to a positive selection of the visual data transfer indicator, provide a data transfer completion prompt on the display to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of display and data transfer completion prompt are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: provide, via a speaker associated with the computing device, an audio summary of the real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, speaker and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 8 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: provide the data transfer prompt as a data transfer audio prompt; in response to a positive audio response to the data transfer audio prompt, provide a data transfer completion audio prompt via a speaker associated with the computing device to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, speaker and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of data transfer prompt and data transfer audio prompt are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: transmit, to a restricted data access server, the authorized restricted data access request specifying the real-time restricted data for which access is requested; and receive, from the restricted data access server, the real-time restricted data associated with the authorized restricted data access request. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, srestricted data access server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above
Claim 11 recites further comprising: obtaining the device authorization token based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a customer of an institution, or based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a non-customer authorized to receive the real-time restricted data from the institution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the device authorization token, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 12 recites further comprising: in response to a determination that the computing device is configured to conduct the related authenticated data transfer, generating a local set of pre-populated data transfer details as the pre-populated data transfer details for completing the related authenticated data transfer on the local platform on the computing device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the computing device and the local platform on the computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 13 recites further comprising: identifying a remote device configured to conduct the related data transfer and on which a user associated with the computing device is known to have been previously authenticated; generating a remote set of pre-populated data transfer details as the pre-populated data transfer details for conducting the related authenticated data transfer on the remote platform on the remote device; and providing the remote set of pre-populated data transfer details to the remote device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the remote platform on the remote device and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 14 recites further comprising: displaying, at a display associated with the computing device, a visual representation associated with the real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of display and visual representation are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 15 recites further comprising: providing the data transfer prompt as a visual data transfer indicator on a display associated with the computing device; and in response to a positive selection of the visual data transfer indicator, providing a data transfer completion prompt on the display to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of visual data transfer indicator, a display and data transfer completion prompt, and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 16 recites further comprising: transmitting, to a restricted data access server, the authorized restricted data access request specifying the real-time restricted data for which access is requested; and receiving, from the restricted data access server, the real-time restricted data associated with the authorized restricted data access request. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of restricted data access server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the method further comprises: in response to a determination that the computing device is configured to conduct the related authenticated data transfer, generating a local set of pre-populated data transfer details as the pre-populated data transfer details for completing the related authenticated data transfer on the local platform on the computing device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and the additional elements of the computing device and local platform on the computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 17 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, to a restricted data access server, the authorized restricted data access request specifying the real-time restricted data for which access is requested; and receiving, from the restricted data access server, the real-time restricted data associated with the authorized restricted data access request. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and the additional elements of restricted data access server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 17 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims do not involve trading (Applicant arguments, pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. Applicant own specification discloses “trading,” in paragraph 21. In the same paragraph, Applicant discloses the context of “real-time” which is discussed in paragraph 21, where quotes are used for trading. Examiner also notes that the current 101 rejection “mental process” has been removed above.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (Pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that there are hardly any technical details in the claim beyond, “intelligent deep linking,” which fails to recite enough detail for an improvement to technology.
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights