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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method (claim 17) that falls under the mental process/ organized human activity groupings as it directed to authorizing a transaction by following rules (comparing acquired data to stored data to make a decision). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is merely performed using generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a processor and scanner are seen as generic computer components that are being applied to computerize a mental concept to authorize a transaction. Scanning/ reading/ imaging is not a practical application because it is merely routine data gathering. The scanning, analyzing (determining), prioritizing, and authorizing are analogous to steps performed by a merchant to authorize a transaction, being performed by generic computer components, thus being used as tools to apply the abstract idea in a particular environment. Further, collecting, displaying and manipulating data is not more than data manipulation (Accenture v. Guidewire, Electric Power v Alstom, Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft), Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (comparing data to match, collecting data. . . recognizing certain data within the collected data set), and "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically in claim 17, the receiving step is routine data gathering, the determining step is a mental process performed using generic computer components for comparisons, prioritizing is a mental step and authorizing the transaction is completion of the abstract idea and/ or insignificant post solution activity. Claim 18 is drawn to specific details of the abstract idea (data) and is not a practical application. Claim 19 is drawn to the mental steps of authorizing the truncation/ authenticating. Claim 20 is drawn to compliance with rules, which is mental steps (comparisons). Claim 1 is the analogous system claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 2-5 are drawn to routine data gathering steps of the abstract idea using generic computer peripheral components. Claim 6 is drawn to mental steps/ routine data gathering. Claim 7 is drawn to the specifics of the data and is still abstract. GPS is generic computer components (claim 8). Claim 9 is routine data gathering for mental steps for performing a transaction. Claim 10 is storing limitations which are mental steps (analogous to pen and paper). Claim 11 is drawn to following rules (MPEP 2106.04a2.II org. human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and redacting falls under mental steps. Claim 12 is merely completion of the abstract idea/ post solution activity. Claim 13 merely specify details of the abstract idea (specific rules) and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 14 and verifying is mental steps. Claim 15 is abstract rule following details. Claim 16 is mental steps of authentication. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 17 recite “rules that are most restrictive” which is vague/ indefinite because it is unclear from what side (which party of the transaction) the rule is more restrictive Additionally, claim 1 is unclear because it prioritizes the rule, but fails to recite that anything is actually done with the rule (such as performing a truncation like claim 17). The dependent claims are rejected as least based on their dependency.Appropriate correction is requested.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876