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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to identify a client, receiving an expected amount from the client, identify a product identifier, determine a purchase amount and request for approval of the pending transaction to the client based on the purchase amount exceeding a threshold of the expected amount, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 8 (and similarly claims 1 and 15) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method, comprising:
identifying, by at least one computing device, a client device in a store location using a wireless communication protocol;
receiving, by the at least one computing device, an expected amount for a product from the client device;
identifying, by the at least one computing device, a product identifier for the product based at least in part on a scan of the product;
determining, by the at least one computing device, a purchase amount for a pending transaction for the product based at least in part on the product identifier; and
transmitting, by the at least one computing device, a request for approval of the pending transaction to the client device based at least in part on the expected amount and the purchase amount exceeding a threshold, the request comprising the purchase amount.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one computing device”, “a client device”, “a wireless communication protocol”, and “transmitting… to the client device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “at least one computing device”, “a client device”, “a wireless communication protocol”, and “transmitting… to the client device” language, “identifying… a client … in a store location …; identifying… a product identifier for the product based at least in part on a scan of the product; determining… a purchase amount for a pending transaction for the product based at least in part on the product identifier” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “receiving… an expected amount for a product from the client; request for approval of the pending transaction to the client … based at least in part on the expected amount and the purchase amount exceeding a threshold, the request comprising the purchase amount” in the context of this claim encompass certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites four additional elements – “at least one computing device”, “a client device”, “a wireless communication protocol”, and “transmitting… to the client device”. The “at least one computing device”, “client device”, “wireless communication protocol”, and “transmitting” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the identifying, determining and transmitting steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving step). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does 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 “at least one computing device”, “a client device”, “a wireless communication protocol”, and “transmitting… to the client device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “at least one computing device”, “client device”, “wireless communication protocol”, and “transmitting” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights