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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed8/10/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “claimed invention recites an improvement to the technical field of networked authorization systems by providing a specific technical mechanism for dynamically controlling authorization identifiers based on parsed trigger event data. The claims recite specific technical operations for parsing unstructured data to extract commencement and completion times, generating structured time-window records, and using these to control the activation state of authorization identifiers stored in a data structure. The authorization rules engine is invoked only when the activation state indicates that the authorization identifier is active, providing a technical efficiency improvement that avoids unnecessary processing. The claims further recite specific data structure operations for setting activation states and managing associations between authorization identifiers and users, as well as transmitting interaction log content to a different user's client device for display in a user interface. These limitations represent specific technical implementations that improve the functioning of networked authorization systems by enabling automatic, time-bounded control of authorization identifiers based on parsed event data, rather than requiring manual activation and deactivation. Accordingly, the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, (see remarks pg. 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for activating a card for start/end of an event, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as the individual utilizing a database can collect and transmit data and make comparisons to activate a particular card upon request from another user. The computing elements such as “system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 15” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in combination, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 recites method for activating a card for start/end of an event.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving, from a first third-party at an account management, interaction information for associated with a user of the account management, wherein the interaction information comprises unstructured data describing a trigger event associated with the user; parsing the unstructured data of the received interaction information to identify a commencement time of the trigger event and a completion time of the trigger event, and generating from the identified commencement time and completion time, a structured time-window; in response to identifying the commencement time and the completion time of the trigger event, issuing an authorization identifier for use by the user during the trigger event, wherein the authorization identifier is issued in a deactivated state; activating, by the account management, the authorization identifier at the commencement time of the trigger event indicated by the structured time-window record, and wherein activating the authorization identifier comprises setting an activation state of the authorization identifier to active and associating the authorization identifier with the user; receiving, from a second third-party, an identification of an interaction authorization request from the user, wherein the interaction authorization request comprises the authorization identifier; reading the activation state of the authorization identifier; responsive to the activation state indicating that the authorization identifier is active, determining, by the authorization rules that the interaction authorization request complies with authorization rules associated with the authorization identifier; responsive to determining that the interaction authorization request complies with the authorization rules, transmitting an authorization of the interaction authorization request to the second third-party ; responsive to the activation state indicating that the authorization identifier is inactive, transmitting a denial of the interaction authorization request without invoking the authorization rules; deactivating, by the account management , the authorization identifier at the completion time of the trigger event indicated by the structured time-window record, wherein deactivating the authorization identifier comprises setting the activation state of the authorization identifier to inactive and removing the association of the authorization identifier with the user in the ; and generating interaction logs associated with the authorization identifier, wherein the interaction logs lists a plurality of interactions that comprise an interaction associated with the interaction authorization request, and wherein the interaction logs associate the user with the interaction associated with the interaction authorization request” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 15) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 15). The system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure, rules engine, user interface of claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the system in claims 5-7, 12-14, 19-20; client device in claims 2, 9, 16; data structure of claim 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18; computer-readable medium in claims 9-14; computer system, system, client device, data structure of claim 8; computer system in claims 16-20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Shapiro, 20130290184, teaches:
receiving, from a first third-party system at an account management system, interaction information for a client device associated with a user of the account management system, wherein the interaction information comprises unstructured data describing a trigger event associated with the user; determining, by the account management system, that the interaction authorization request complies with authorization rules associated with the authorization identifier; responsive to determining that the interaction authorization request complies with the authorization rules, transmitting an authorization of the interaction authorization request to the second third-party system;
Cohen, 2015/0058214, teaches:
in response to identifying the commencement time and the completion time of the trigger event, issuing an authorization identifier for use by the user during the trigger event, wherein the authorization identifier is issued in a deactivated state; activating, by the account management system, the authorization identifier at the commencement time of the trigger event, and wherein activating the authorization identifier comprises associating the authorization identifier with the user in a data structure; generating interaction logs associated with the authorization identifier, wherein the interaction logs lists a plurality of interactions that comprise an interaction associated with the interaction authorization request, and wherein the interaction logs associate the user with the interaction associated with the interaction authorization request; deactivating, by the account management system, the authorization identifier at the completion time of the trigger event, wherein deactivating the authorization identifier comprises removing the association of the authorization identifier with the user in the data structure;
Otillar, 20180276578, teaches:
parsing the received interaction information to identify a commencement time of the trigger event and a completion time of the trigger event; receiving, from a second third-party system, an identification of an interaction authorization request from the user, wherein the interaction authorization request comprises the authorization identifier;
Allen, 20160342900, teaches:
parsing the unstructured data […];
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights