DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the claims expressly recite "submitting a transaction to a processing service for authorization using the account information associated with the first transaction medium." The claims are directed to a specific distributed transaction-processing architecture involving the portable computing device, wallet application, payment service system, card payment network, and service authorization systems. Applicant’s representative further cites DDR in support of their argument.
In response the claims as now amended still fail to recite specific computer structures to
implement the claimed functions. The broad recitation of a “computing device” for performing the claimed function of displaying, receiving and submitting is not a specific compute structure, as the claimed functions can be performed mentally and manually. These claimed functions are and can be mentally processed to perform the related claimed functions.
These claimed functions are merely generic function of “displaying” data, “receiving” data, “retrieving” data (similar to a data gathering function), and “submitting data” (which is similar to an insignificant data activity). Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of a generic device to display, receive, retrieve and submit data.
The question in step two of the Alice framework is not whether an additional feature is novel but whether the implementation of the abstract idea involves "more than [the] performance of 'well--understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
The claims in DDR Holdings were determined to be "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.". The instant claims recite a computing device. The examiner notes that these are conventional components of a computer. The use of a computing device for performing routine computer functions for facilitating trades or business functions is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The instant claims do not appear to improve on any technology. The problem that was solved in DDR was with the architecture of their overall system. The instant claims merely receive, retrieve, display and transmit data. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the processor, receiving device or the database or the architecture of the overall system or computing device.
The claims still fail to recite technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions.
The claims "do[es] not improve the functioning of the computing device or processor having a running application or make[s] it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "Nothing in the claim[s], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information." Brumfield V. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claims also do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of the computing device with the processor and memory or using a computing logic of the computing device or global router. The recited functions involve generic or conventional functions and setup of a basic computer device even with the recitation of a running application.
The mere recitation of a generic computing device with a running application cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed computing device with a user interface and running application are merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology, as such does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Applicant’s representative then argues under Step 2B the claims also recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The Office asserts that the claims merely use generic computer components and merely "apply" the alleged abstract idea on a computer. Office Action, 7-9. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s representative then cites BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) in support of their argument.
In response, all the cited prior art provides the structural means or structures for performing the claimed invention or the functions as recited in at least the independent claims. The additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of a computing device with a user interface and running application when taken individually or as a whole are seen as a general purpose computer or a computerized system (see the applicant’s specification). These claimed devices are noted to perform routine computer functions. The claimed computing device is seen as a generic computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such does not amount to significantly more. This device is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
In response, to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the reliance of a computers to perform their routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359 . The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
The claimed data objects data are intangible data. A specific type of data as such are within the realm of abstract data, See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims merely recite a generic computing device processor to perform the claimed functions. These types of functions are functions that a generic computer may achieve and they are also functions which similarly the Courts found to be abstract. The claimed “computing device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “displaying”, “receiving”, “retrieving” and submitting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
A 35 USC 101 rejection based on the claims as now amended is found below.
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 1-4, 6 and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method. Claim 20 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for a card interfacing, the method comprising:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for a card interfacing, the method comprising:
displaying, in a user interface of a wallet application running on a portable computing device, a plurality of graphical card objects within a card case layout that mimics a card case, the plurality of graphical card objects being presented in the card case layout and each graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects selectable from the card case layout, each graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects corresponding to a respective transaction medium that is associated with a respective entity;
receiving, through the user interface of the wallet application running on the portable computing device, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects;
retrieving, using the wallet application running on the portable computing device, account information associated with a first transaction medium represented by the first graphical card object; and
submitting, using the wallet application running on the portable computing device, a transaction to a processing service for authorization using the account information associated with the first transaction medium.
2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a location of [[a]] the portable computing device, wherein the first graphical card object is displayed in the user interface of the wallet application based on a proximity between the location of the portable computing device and a location of a first merchant, and wherein the first transaction medium is associated with the first merchant.
Claim 3 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information.
Claim 4 recites: displaying, in a user interface, a plurality of representations of transaction mediums;
receiving, through the user interface, running on the portable computing device, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects;
retrieving account information associated with the first transaction medium represented
by the first graphical card object; and
submitting a transaction using the account information associated with the
first transaction medium.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the first transaction medium is one of a credit card, a debit card, a pre-paid card associated with at least one merchant, or a bank-associated medium associated with a bank account.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the user interface is associated with a wallet application, wherein the wallet application is used for retrieving the account information associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein the wallet application is used for facilitating the transaction using the account information associated with the first transaction medium.
Claim 10 recites:
receiving a location of the portable computing device, wherein the user interface is presented on the portable computing device, wherein the first graphical card object is displayed in the user interface based on a proximity between the location of the portable computing device and a location of a first merchant, and wherein the first transaction medium is associated with the first merchant.
Claim 11 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information to a point of sale terminal.
Claim 12 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information over a wireless signal.
Claim 13 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information to a server associated with an online shopping website.
Claim 14 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes facilitating the transaction as a cardless transaction.
Claim 15 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is associated with closing a tab.
Claim 16 recites: identifying, based on a location of a device, that the device has crossed a boundary of a geofence area, wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to identifying that the device has crossed the boundary of the geofence area.
Claim 17 recites: wherein a plurality of transaction mediums include at least the first transaction medium and a second transaction medium, wherein the first transaction medium is associated with a first merchant, wherein the second transaction medium is associated with a second merchant, and wherein the plurality of graphical card objects are arranged, in the user interface, according to respective proximities of the first merchant and the second merchant to a location of a device associated with the user interface.
Claim 18 recites: providing, to a merchant device associated with a merchant, an image of a user, wherein the user is associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to a verification of an identity of the user based on the image.
Claim 19 recites: providing, to a merchant device associated with a merchant, a personal identification number (PIN), wherein the PIN is associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to a verification of the PIN.
Claim 20 recites:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory units communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying, in a user interface running on a portable computing device, a plurality of graphical card objects within a card case layout that mimics a card case, the plurality of graphical card objects being presented in the card case layout and each graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects selectable from the card case layout, each graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects corresponding to a respective transaction medium that is associated with a respective entity;
receiving, through the user interface running on the portable computing device, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects;
retrieving account information associated with a first transaction medium represented by the first graphical card object; and
submitting a transaction to a processing service for authorization using the account information associated with the first transaction medium.
Claim 21 (New) recites: wherein the plurality of graphical card objects are displayed as cards stored within the card case layout.
Claim 22 (New) recites: wherein the selection of the first graphical card object causes the portable computing device to display an option to open a tab associated with a merchant corresponding to the first graphical card object.
Claim 23 (New) recites: automatically opening a tab associated with a merchant when the portable computing device is within a predetermined distance from the merchant.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations because it amounts to the functions of :
retrieving, account information associated with a first transaction medium represented by the first graphical card object, and submitting, using a transaction to a processing service for authorization using the account information associated with the first card the first transaction medium.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describes functions of:
retrieving, account information associated with a first transaction medium represented by the first graphical card object, and submitting, using a transaction to a processing service for authorization using the account information associated with the first card the first transaction medium.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “device”, “user interface of a wallet application” and a “processor“ with a “memory” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or processor with a memory.
Performing steps or functions by a device or user interface with a running application or a processor with a memory merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
“Displaying” data, “receiving” data, “retrieving” data and “submitting” data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or a user interface or a device.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence or functions of "receiving, a user input corresponding to a selection a first graphical card object of the plurality of graphical card objects, retrieving a first transaction medium represented by the first graphical card object and submitting a transaction using the account information associated with the first transaction medium".
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “device”, a “processor” with a memory, and a “user interface with a wallet application” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor, device and user interface are noted to a be a generic computer for displaying, receiving and retrieving data, and performing routine and expected computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “user interface” and “device” or “merchant device” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 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, 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights