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 response to remarks received 06/02/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent claims and claims 2-7, 9-14 & 16-20 are dependent.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims are directed to an abstract Idea.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for receiving an input indicating a number of interactions associated with a transaction session, generate an interaction counter for the transaction session based at least in part on the number of interactions, send a request for a first set of data corresponding to a first interaction of the number of interactions, receive the first set of data in response to the request; and increment the interactions counter based at least in part on the first set of data for the first interaction.
These steps collectively describe receiving, generating, transmitting and incrementing data associated with a number of interactions related to a transaction, including updating an interaction counter based on detected transaction events, which constitute organizing and managing human/commercial activity and recordkeeping.
These steps reflect longstanding practices of tracking transactional interactions, counting occurrences, and maintaining activity records that can be, and historically have been, performed by humans using rules and basic bookkeeping, now implemented using generic computing technology.
Courts have consistently held that concepts such as fraud detection, risk evaluation, transaction authorization, and access control constitute abstract ideas. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claims include a computing device comprising a processor and a memory, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and function are only as tools to implement the abstract idea.
The claims do not recite: an improvement to the functioning of a computer or server; an improvement to encryption technology or tokenization techniques; a specific technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology; or a particular data structure or protocol that improves security or efficiency.
Instead, the claimed components merely receive, generate, send and increment information, which are functions that constitute generic computer operations.
Thus, the claims merely apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements (i.e., claim limitations considered “beyond” the abstract idea) recited, such as receive and input, generate an interaction counter, sent a request for a first set of data, and increment the interaction counter; are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of electronic fraud detection and access control.
When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 8 and 15 recite limitations analogous to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 also includes a transaction terminal, however, it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The dependent claims are separately considered. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without significantly more. There are no additional elements to consider. Accordingly, each dependent claim adds only conventional computer implementation details and/or insignificant extra-solution activity beyond the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims likewise do not recite an inventive concept for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-3, 5-10, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meher Sahiti Kalvakuntla et al. (US 2024/0428221 A1, herein Kalvakuntla) in view of Peter Crosby (US 2025/0371533 A1, herein Crosby).
As per claim 1, Kalvakuntla teaches a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [30, 56-57 & 61-62]); and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
receive an input from a user interface, the input indicating a number of interactions associated with a transaction session (Kalvakuntla Fig. 4 and ¶ [22] disclose receiving user input indicating a number of interactions associated with a transaction, where the input includes selecting and adding one or more individuals to a list or group for splitting a transaction. Each selected individual corresponds to a distinct interaction associated with the transaction, such that the user input inherently specifies the number of transaction-related interactions. As additional individuals are added to the list or group, the system necessarily updates data representing the number of interactions associated with the transaction, thereby reading on incrementing interaction-related data in response to received input);
generate an interaction counter for the transaction session based at least in part on the number of interactions (Kalvakuntla Fig. 5 and ¶¶ [23 & 45]);
send a request for a first set of data corresponding to a first interaction of the number of interactions (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [47-48]);
it can be argued that Kalvakuntla does not explicitly teach, however, Crosby further teaches:
receive the first set of data in response to the request (Crosby ¶¶ [19, 60, 74 & 78]); and
increment the interaction counter based at least in part on the first set of data for the first interaction (Crosby ¶¶ [58 & 60] disclose maintaining transaction data for multiple designated payers and updating the payment status for each payer, including transitioning a status to “processed” or confirmed upon completion of payment. Each transaction to a completed payment state represents an additional completed payment interaction associated with the transaction, thereby incrementing an interaction counter corresponding to completed interactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kalvakuntla bundled transaction splitting system to incorporate Crosby’s payment-sharing status and confirmation tracking, in order to maintain and update data reflecting the number of user interactions associated with a transaction. Kalvakuntla discloses receiving user input to select multiple transactions and individuals for splitting a transaction and generating transaction data associated with those selections, while Crosby discloses tracking payment statuses (e.g., processed, pending, incomplete) for multiple designated payers and updating shared payment information as payment events occur. Incorporating Crosby’s status-based tracking into Kalvakuntla’s transaction splitting framework would have been predictably resulted in incrementing and maintaining an interaction count corresponding to user participation and payment events associated with a transaction. Such a combination merely applies known data tracking techniques to a known transaction splitting system to improve monitoring and management of multi-party transaction and represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
As per claims 8 & 15, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 1 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 2, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 1, Kalvakuntla further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least generate the request for the first set of data based at least in part on the number of interactions (Kalvakuntla ¶ [23] discloses a default split that is equitably divided amongst members of split payment).
As per claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 2 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 3, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 1, Kalvakuntla further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least establish a secure short-range connection with a client device (Kalvakuntla ¶ [29]).
As per claims 10 & 16, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 3 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 5, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 1, Kalvakuntla further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least determine a verifier for the first set of data based at least in part on the request for the first set of data and the first set of data (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [34-35]).
As per claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 5 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 6, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 5, Kalvakuntla further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
determine the number of interactions has been received based at least in part on the interaction counter (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [23 & 45]); and
send at least the first set of data to the verifier (Kalvakuntla ¶ [34]).
As per claims 13 & 18, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 6 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 7, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 1, Kalvakuntla further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
generate a split message, the split message comprising an option to split the request for the first set of data into two or more interactions (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [36, 42-45 and 47]); and
present the split message in a user interface, wherein the input is received in response to the split message (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [42 & 54]).
As per claims 14 & 17, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 7 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 19, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 15, Kalvakuntla further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least receive an updated request for data from the transaction terminal based at least in part on having sent the interaction counter tag (Kalvakuntla ¶¶ [23 & 45]).
Claims 4, 11 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalvakuntla in view of Crosby and in further view of Christopher Michael Huffines et al. (US 10,679,207 B1, herein Huffines).
As per claim 4, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 3, it can be argued that the combination of Kalvakuntla and Crosby do not explicitly teach, however, Huffines further teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
establish a second secure short-range connection with a second client device (Huffines column 1 lines 16-20, column 6 lines 32-42 & 56-67, column 8 lines 39-53, and column 9 lines 44-55);
send a request for a second set of data corresponding to a second interaction of the number of interactions (Huffines column 6 lines 56-67);
receive the second set of data in response to the request (Huffines column 7 lines 6-14 and column 8 lines 39-53); and
increment the interaction counter based at least in part on the second set of data for the second interaction (Huffines column 7 lines 15-29 and column 8 lines 39-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the NFC-based bill splitting and account delegation techniques of Huffines into the combined system of Kalvakuntla and Crosby in order to facilitate proximate, device-to-device initiation and management of multi-party transaction interactions. While Kalvakuntla discloses splitting transactions among multiple participants and Crosby discloses tracking and updating payment interaction states, Huffines provides a complementary mechanism for initiating and managing bill splitting interactions using near-field communication between user devices. Incorporating Huffines’ NFC-based interaction initiation into the combined system would have predictably enabled efficient, secure, and user-initiated interaction events associated with transaction participation, thereby further supporting the tracking incrementing of interaction data for shared transactions. Such as combination merely applies known short-range communication techniques to known transaction splitting and interaction tracking systems to improve usability and efficiency, and represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
As per claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 4 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 20, Kalvakuntla and Crosby teach the system of claim 15, it can be argued that the combination of Kalvakuntla and Crosby do not explicitly teach, however, Huffines further teaches:
wherein the interaction counter flag instructs the transaction terminal to receive the number of interactions before closing the transaction session (Huffines column 8 lines 23-38).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims are not directed to a judicial exception because the claimed receiving, generating, transmitting, and incrementing data associated with a number of interactions related to a transaction, including updating an interaction counter based on detected transaction events, which constitute organizing and managing human/commercial activity and record keeping. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1 and similarly recited independent claims 8 and 15 recite receiving input indicating a number of interactions associated with a transaction session, generating an interaction counter for the transaction session based at least in part on the number of interactions, sending a request for a first set of data corresponding to a first interaction of the number of interactions, receiving the first set of data in response to the request, and incrementing the interaction counter based at least in part on the first set of data for the first interaction. Considered together, the Examiner interprets these limitations as tracking and maintaining information concerning interactions occurring as part of a transaction, including maintaining a count or record of those interactions. Such limitations concern the management and performance of a commercial transaction and therefore fall within the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Merely implementing these transaction management activities using a interface, computing device, processor, memory, requests, data, and an interaction counter does not remove the underlying commercial interaction from the abstract idea grouping. The dependent claims incorporate the limitations of their respective parent claims and therefore likewise recite the identified abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the interaction counter provides a technical solution to the technical problem caused by the stateless nature of contactless transactions. Applicant relies on paragraphs [0001], [0009], [0010] and [0011] of the Specification and asserts a technical solution to a technical problem because the interaction counter permits a transaction session to remain open until the requisite number of interactions have been completed, thereby reducing time and computing resources, and reducing transfers between the terminal application and backend server. However, the claims broadly require generating an interaction counter based on a number of interactions and incrementing that counter based on received data does not recite the particular technical mechanisms by which a contactless protocol is modified, how a session that would otherwise reset a technically maintained, how vulnerable transfers are prevented, or how operation of the underlying communication or computing technology itself is improved. Instead, the claimed computing components are used to generate, increment, receive, request, send, determine, and update information in carrying out the recited transaction related activity. The fact that the establishment of secure short-range connections with client devices is not itself an abstract idea does not establish that the claim as a whole fails to recite the abstract idea inherited from the parent claim. Rather, the additional limitations using secure connection merely provide a technological mechanism through which the underlying transaction related interactions are carried out and does not, as claimed, impose a meaningful limitation that transforms the transaction management concept into a practical application. Thus, the claims use computer technology as a tool for implementing the abstract idea rather than reciting a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, contactless communication technology, or another technical field. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea since the interaction counter is not well-understood, routine, or conventional use because contactless transactions are traditionally stateless and therefore using an interaction counter to add state to such transactions constitutes an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant’s characterization of the interaction counter as unconventional does not, by itself, establish significantly more than the judicial exception. The relevant inquiry considers the additional elements beyond the judicial exception individually and as an ordered combination. Here, the additional elements, including the computing device, processor, memory, user interface, transmission and receipt of requests and data, and counter implementation; perform their ordinary functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing information. Moreover, the claimed counter itself performs the recited operation of maintaining and incrementing a count based on the transaction-related interactions, which the Examiner previously characterized as tracking transaction-related information that forms part of the abstract idea rather than supplying a distinct technological feature beyond the exception. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements merely implement the abstract transaction management activity using generic computing technology and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
For the above reasoning, Applicant’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 17-18 that Kalvakuntla is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because Mukund Shankar SimhaRaghu is a joint inventor of both the present application and Kalvakuntla, and therefore the exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A) applies. Applicant further argues that Kalvakuntla is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) because Mr. SimhaRaghu is a coinventor of both applications and both applications are allegedly assigned to American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., such that the exceptions under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)(2)(A) and 102(b)(2)(C) apply. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kalvakuntla was published on December 26, 2024, prior to the effective filing date of December 27, 2024 of the present application, and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) unless an applicable exception is established. Although Mr. SimhaRaghu is named as a joint inventor in both applications, Kalvakuntla names additional inventors who are not named inventors of the present application. The mere presence of a common inventor does not, itself, establish that the subject matter relied upon from Kalvakuntla was disclosed by Mr. SimhaRaghu or was obtained directly or indirectly form him. Applicant has not provided an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.130(a), or other sufficient evidence of record, establishing that the relied-upon subject matter is an inventor-originated disclosure entitled to the exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, Applicant has not established that Kalvakuntla is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) are likewise not persuasive. Applicant asserts that both applications are commonly assigned, however, Applicant has not provided the required statement that the subject matter disclosed by Kalvakuntla and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Accordingly, Applicant has not properly established the exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C). Further, the presence of a common inventor does not, by itself, establish that the subject matter relied upon from Kalvakuntla was obtained directly or indirectly from an inventor or joint inventor as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(A).
For the above reasoning, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior-art status of Kalvakuntla are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
