DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Application 19/034,096 filed on January 22, 2025.
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 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.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and claims 15-20 are directed to a product. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite completing a transaction/settlement with a transaction token which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving a first request to perform a transaction; providing a second request to perform the transaction; displaying… that indicates the transaction will be performed independent from a management entity, wherein includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction; receiving a transaction token wherein: the transaction token is provided in conjunction with receiving a selection of the first option to approve the transaction, and the transaction token corresponds to the transaction; and providing the transaction token to a developer entity to cause the developer entity to perform the transaction, wherein, when the transaction is performed, the transaction token enables a reconciliation procedure to be carried out.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically “business relations” as part of a transaction such as a payment or settlement (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for managing transaction tokens that enable reconciliation procedures by performing an in-app transaction that can be carried out by a software application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a software application executing on a computing device and user interface (UI) merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a software application executing on a computing device and user interface (UI) to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, a software application executing on a computing device and user interface (UI) perform the steps or functions of the “receiving a first request to perform a transaction; providing a second request to perform the transaction; displaying… that indicates the transaction will be performed independent from a management entity, wherein includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction; receiving a transaction token wherein: the transaction token is provided in conjunction with receiving a selection of the first option to approve the transaction, and the transaction token corresponds to the transaction; and providing the transaction token to a developer entity to cause the developer entity to perform the transaction, wherein, when the transaction is performed, the transaction token enables a reconciliation procedure to be carried out”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the computing device and user interface (UI), to perform the steps amounts to no more than using the computing device and user interface (UI) to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of completing a transaction/settlement with a transaction token. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the computing device and user interface (UI) perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of completing a transaction/settlement with a transaction token. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of the computing device and user interface (UI) to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe how the user interface is utilized to receive a selection of the first option to approve the transaction and how the reconciliation procedure includes providing a report that includes information associated with at least the second transaction further elaborating on the abstract idea of completing a transaction/settlement with a transaction token. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “transaction framework compris[ing] an Application Programming Interface (API) that is communicatively coupled to: at least the software application and the management entity”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette et al. (US 12,026,686 B2) in view of MOCK et al. (US 2020/0250694 A1) and in further view of Vogel et al. (US 9,882,892 B1)
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Ouellette discloses a method for managing [transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures], the method comprising, by a software application executing on a computing device (Col. 3 lines 8-18, Col. 4 lines 51-Col. 5 line 7, Col. 6 lines 13-23):
receiving a first request to perform a transaction (Col. 3 lines 44-48)
providing, to a transaction framework implemented on the computing device, a second request to perform the transaction; (Col. 3 lines 49-53)
displaying, under instruction of the transaction framework, a user interface (UI) that indicates the transaction will be performed independent from a management entity that is associated with the computing device, [wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction] (Col. 3 lines 1-14, Col. 7 lines 19-56)
receiving a [transaction token] from the transaction framework, wherein: the transaction token is provided in conjunction with receiving, via the UI, a selection of the first option to approve the transaction, and the transaction token corresponds to the transaction; and (Col. 4 lines 6-16 “session identifier is referred to the transaction token”)
providing the transaction token to a developer entity associated with the software application to cause the developer entity to perform the transaction, wherein, when the transaction is performed, the transaction token enables a reconciliation procedure to be carried out (Col. 4 lines 17-35)
Ouellette does not specifically disclose: [transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures].
MOCK however discloses transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures. (¶0045, ¶0047, ¶0052, ¶0053, ¶0112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures], as disclosed in MOCK, in order to provide a matching and settlement system to associate specific marketing/advertising campaigns to completed
sales transactions or in-application interactions using a token (see MOCK ¶0045).
The combination of Ouellette and MOCK does not disclose: [wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction].
Vogel however discloses: wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction (Col. 7 lines 45-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction], as disclosed in Vogel, in order to provide a system for authorizing user access to resources or performing user authorization using intent tokens (see Vogel Col. 1 lines 19-22).
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Ouellette, MOCK and Vogel disclose the invention as above.
MOCK further discloses: wherein the reconciliation procedure comprises: performing a second transaction that is based on the transaction; and providing, to the developer entity, a report that includes information associated with at least the second transaction (¶0041, ¶0045, ¶0047, ¶0052)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [wherein the reconciliation procedure comprises: performing a second transaction that is based on the transaction; and providing, to the developer entity, a report that includes information associated with at least the second transaction], as disclosed in MOCK, in order to provide a matching and settlement system to associate specific marketing/advertising campaigns to completed sales transactions or in-application interactions using a token (see MOCK ¶0045).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, Ouellette discloses wherein the transaction framework comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) that is communicatively coupled to: at least the software application and the management entity (Col. 3 lines 8-18, Col. 4 lines 51-Col. 5 line 7, Col. 6 lines 13-23)
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Ouellette discloses wherein the transaction token is provided in response to a third request issued by the transaction framework to the management entity, wherein the third request includes: a session identifier associated with the third request (Col. 4 lines 6-16) , a unique identifier associated with the software application (Col. 4 lines 6-16), transaction type information that defines that the transaction will take place through the software application rather than through at least one webpage that is loaded in a web browser application executing on the computing device (Col. 4 lines 6-16), and storefront information that includes locale, currency, tax, and commission information associated with the software application, the computing device, the transaction, or some combination thereof (Col. 2 lines 7-12)
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Ouellette discloses wherein the first request is based on a user of the software application seeking to engage in the transaction with the software application (Col. 3 lines 1-14)
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of MOCK in view of Vogel and in further view of CRANFILL et al. (US 2019/0347181 A1)
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Ouellette, MOCK and Vogel does not disclose: wherein the UI is hidden in response to receiving, via the UI, the selection of the first option to approve the transaction.
CRANFILL however discloses: wherein the UI is hidden in response to receiving, via the UI, the selection of the first option to approve the transaction (FIG. 8DD; ¶0308).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [wherein the UI is hidden in response to receiving, via the UI, the selection of the first option to approve the transaction], as disclosed in CRANFILL, in order to provide an electronic device that suppresses auxiliary functions of certain applications when an application usage limit or restriction criteria associated with those applications is reached (see CRANFILL abstract).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of MOCK in view of Vogel and in further view of RICHTER et al. (US 2023/0376926 A1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Ouellette, MOCK and Vogel does not disclose: receiving transaction results from the developer entity; and updating the transaction token based on the transaction results.
RICHTER however discloses: receiving transaction results from the developer entity (¶0095); and updating the transaction token based on the transaction results (¶0164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [receiving transaction results from the developer entity (¶0095); and updating the transaction token based on the transaction results], as disclosed in RICHTER, in order to provide a system for secure online transaction using encrypted tokens (see RICHTER abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697