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 9/16/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 3, 6, 9, 15
Canceled claims: 2, 4, 7, 10
Added New claims: 23-24
Pending claims: 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-24
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, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-24 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 6 and 15 are directed to a method (claims 1 and 15) and a system (claim 6). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 6 and 15 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 6 and 15, 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 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) storing, at a first time, account data associated with the user accounts, wherein the account data indicates respective user classifications, (ii) monitoring, payments between the user accounts; based at least in part on the monitoring, (iii) detecting, at a second time, that the first user account is attempting to make a payment to the second user account, (iv) in response to the detecting, determining, based on the account data stored at the first time and without reapplying the machine learning model at the second time, that the first user classification of the first user account and the second user classification of the second user account are different from each other; (v) in response to determining that the first user classification and the second user classification are different from each other, determining, using location data and contact book data accessible: whether, at a time of the detecting, a first location associated with the first user account is within a threshold distance from a second location associated with the second user account, (vi) and whether, at the time of the detecting, a quantity of user accounts of the payment service that have shared contact books that include respective identifiers associated with both the first user account and the second user account satisfies a threshold quantity; (vii) in response to determining at least one of: (i) that the first location is not within the threshold distance from the second location, or (ii) that the quantity of the user accounts that have shared the contact books that include the respective identifiers fails to satisfy the threshold quantity, causing, the payment to automatically fail; (viii) and sending, an instruction, associated with the first user account, (ix) executing a payment application, and wherein the instruction causes the payment application to present a user interface element notifying a user that the payment failed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices – mitigating risk but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claims 6 and 15 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a computing system associated with a payment service, a user device, a datastore, training, by a computing system associated with a payment service, a machine learning model using training data comprising contextual data associated with historical payments between user accounts associated with the payment service and associating, by the computing system and based on application of the machine learning model, a first user classification, of a plurality of user classifications, to a first user account and a second user classification, of the plurality of user classifications, to a second user account, wherein the associating is performed as part of a classification process executed periodically across the user account nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices – mitigating risk. 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”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional elements of, a computing system associated with a payment service, a user device, a datastore, training, by a computing system associated with a payment service, a machine learning model using training data comprising contextual data associated with historical payments between user accounts associated with the payment service and associating, by the computing system and based on application of the machine learning model, a first user classification, of a plurality of user classifications, to a first user account and a second user classification, of the plurality of user classifications, to a second user account, wherein the associating is performed as part of a classification process executed periodically across the user account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a computing system associated with a payment service, a user device, a datastore, training, by a computing system associated with a payment service, a machine learning model using training data comprising contextual data associated with historical payments between user accounts associated with the payment service and associating, by the computing system and based on application of the machine learning model, a first user classification, of a plurality of user classifications, to a first user account and a second user classification, of the plurality of user classifications, to a second user account, wherein the associating is performed as part of a classification process executed periodically across the user account.
The computing system associated with a payment service, user device, datastore, training, by a computing system associated with a payment service, a machine learning model using training data comprising contextual data associated with historical payments between user accounts associated with the payment service and associating, by the computing system and based on application of the machine learning model, a first user classification, of a plurality of user classifications, to a first user account and a second user classification, of the plurality of user classifications, to a second user account, wherein the associating is performed as part of a classification process executed periodically across the user account 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 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 1 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 a computing system associated with a payment service, a user device, a datastore, training, by a computing system associated with a payment service, a machine learning model using training data comprising contextual data associated with historical payments between user accounts associated with the payment service and associating, by the computing system and based on application of the machine learning model, a first user classification, of a plurality of user classifications, to a first user account and a second user classification, of the plurality of user classifications, to a second user account, wherein the associating is performed as part of a classification process executed periodically across the user account, storing, at a first time, account data associated with the user accounts, wherein the account data indicates respective user classifications, monitoring, payments between the user accounts; based at least in part on the monitoring, detecting, at a second time, that the first user account is attempting to make a payment to the second user account, in response to the detecting, determining, based on the account data stored at the first time and without reapplying the machine learning model at the second time, that the first user classification of the first user account and the second user classification of the second user account are different from each other; in response to determining that the first user classification and the second user classification are different from each other, determining, using location data and contact book data accessible: whether, at a time of the detecting, a first location associated with the first user account is within a threshold distance from a second location associated with the second user account, and whether, at the time of the detecting, a quantity of user accounts of the payment service that have shared contact books that include respective identifiers associated with both the first user account and the second user account satisfies a threshold quantity; in response to determining at least one of: (i) that the first location is not within the threshold distance from the second location, or (ii) that the quantity of the user accounts that have shared the contact books that include the respective identifiers fails to satisfy the threshold quantity, causing, the payment to automatically fail; and sending, an instruction, associated with the first user account, executing a payment application, and wherein the instruction causes the payment application to present a user interface element notifying a user that the payment failed, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a 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 because 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, 5, 8-9, 11-14 and 16-24 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 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-24 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 9/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states that “the instant claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by encompassing technological improvements to payment service systems” (page 13) and “The claim limitations reflect a concrete architectural choice with a stated technical effect.” (page 14). The Examiner disagrees with these sentences because the claim amendments further define and recite a more narrow abstract idea. 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 Examiner disagrees that “classification occurring periodically, independent of any particular payment (via the model), and the real-time fraud check occurring at the time of payment (via a lookup, not the model) . . . . . is a specific improvement to how the computer system is arranged to perform the task-by reducing the computational runtime burden and removing the model from the latency-sensitive path not merely the abstract idea” (pages 14-15). The claims do not use generic and conventional components in a non-conventional manner. Instead, the invention uses conventional components arranged in a conventional manner to perform a conventional process. Determining whether to approve a transaction is not an unconventional activity. The data and algorithm are conventional, and are arranged and used in a conventional manner. The claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. They are a business solution to the business problem of determining whether to approve a transaction. 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 the Internet and merely apply the abstract idea on a general computer. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific. 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
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
