DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 04/23/2026 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 19/049728 filed 04/23/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined with this office action.
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 of detecting an evaluation period, providing a user with the option to block charges after the evaluation period ends, identifying an entity based on the incoming data, and blocking further activity with the entity based on identification information in the incoming data 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. 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), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system, and independent claim 10 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer readable medium storing instruction to perform functions/steps and independent claim 16 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computing device. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer implemented method comprising: determining, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity; causing, based on the machine learning model determining that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user; receiving, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; storing, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receiving, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, blocking the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method”.
Claim 10 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform steps comprising: determining, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity; causing, based on the machine learning model determining that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user; receiving, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; storing, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receiving, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, blocking the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method”.
Claim 16 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: determine, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity; cause, based on the machine learning model determining that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user; receive, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; store, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receive, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, block the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Detecting an evaluation period, providing a user with the option to block charges after the evaluation period ends, identifying an entity based on the incoming data, and blocking further activity with the entity based on identification information in the incoming data is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer; a machine learning model; a server; electronic; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media; one or more processors; a computing device; memory. However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer ([0030-0032] [0034]); a machine learning model ([0071] The service provider identification model, similar to machine learning model 127 in FIG. 1, may use multiple methods to isolate the service provider identifier from the incoming charge data, including, but not limited to, regex processing, parsing of specific fields, lookup of service provider ID numbers, and more [0079] [0087] [0096]); a server ([Figure 1, element 105] [0045]); electronic (a programmed computer [0034]); one or more non-transitory computer-readable media ([0034]); one or more processors ([0032]); a computing device ([Figure 1] [0022]); memory ([0032] [0034]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 5, this claim recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
trained on data compiled from incoming charge data associated with a plurality of service providers and a plurality of users (claim 5).
However, the specification description of the additional elements trained on data compiled from incoming charge data associated with a plurality of service providers and a plurality of users ([Figure 9][0094-0098]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Specifically, the claim limit “ causing, based on the machine learning model determining that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user” cannot be found in the prior art. The closest prior art Samitt (U.S. Patent No. 10482467) determines that the trail for service is about to expire, but do not apply a machine learning model for the determination. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting and prior art are overcome with the amendment to claims.
Applicant's arguments with regards to patent eligibility have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument directed toward Step 2A-Prong One that the claims are not directed toward the identified abstract idea, the examiner disagrees. The Abstract idea as disclosure and claimed is found in the Field of use statement in Paragraph [0002]. Regarding applicant’s argument that the claims cannot be done in the human mind, the examiner argues that this argument is moot since the additional element are merely applied to the abstract ideas as tools for implementation. There is no claimed improvement to machine learning or training or any other claimed additional element. Regarding applicant’s argument that “the Office has not identified any evidence that such a practice existed prior to the invention”, the examiner contends that the addition of abstract claim limits, even if novel, to an abstract idea (a fundamental economic practice) does not make the abstract idea any less abstract and therefore, are still rendered patent ineligible. Restated, if the claimed “practice” is not patent eligible subject matter, the fact that the “practice” is novel is beside the point for a §101 inquiry. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 1: 10cv910 (LMB/TRJ), 2014 WL 5430956, at *11 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014) ("The concern of § 101 is not novelty, but preemption."). Regarding applicant’s argument that the claims are rooted in computer technology, the examiner reiterates that the computer technology is merely applied to the abstract idea without improvement to the underlying computer technology. Thus, with respect to applicant’s cited paragraphs [0024] [0087-0088], these paragraphs cited an abstract idea involving identifying the service provider from incoming charge data which is a problem that does exist in the absence of any technology. Paragraph [0088] states the functional objective of gathering data into a standardized format but applies the technology at a high level of generality by the use of a programmed computer (APIs) to perform human tasks of gathering and processing data across various sources. However, there are no implementation details as to how the format standardization occurs within the APIs.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed toward Step 2A-Prong Two and Step 2B, that the claims are not merely apply an abstract idea on a generic computer, the examiner disagree. The claims require the use of a programmed computer to implement the “workflow”. However, a general purpose computer is flexible—it can do anything it is programmed to do. Therefore, the disclosure of a general purpose computer or a microprocessor as corresponding structure for a software function does nothing to limit the scope of the claim and “avoid pure functional claiming.” Further, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)). The fact that the claims recite coordination between a user’s device and server does not render otherwise patent ineligible subject matter patent eligible. The server and user device are merely programmed to perform operations of the abstract idea and act as proxies for human elements or implementation of additional elements (machine learning) which are merely applied to the abstract idea. Regarding applicant’s argument that paragraphs [0023-0025] do not recited a "fundamental economic practice", this argument has previously been addressed above with respect to Step 2A prong one, and the examiner reiterates that the addition of abstract claim limitations, even if novel, to an abstract idea (a fundamental economic practice) does not make the abstract idea any less abstract and therefore, are still rendered patent ineligible. Regarding applicant’s argument directed toward amendment to claim 5 regarding “training” a machine learning model, the examiner maintains that there is no improvement to training a machine learning recited in the claims. Merely building and training a machine learning model for a specific purpose does not improve the machine learning model itself but merely applies the technology for a specific purpose. As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited items A-B submitted 02/24/2026 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 02/24/2026.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
05/20/2026
Prosecution Insights