DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 23 July 2026.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 21 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 22-30 have been added.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-30 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-30 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the claims now expressly recite a particular distributed computer architecture that improves the operation of a payment instrument service through a dynamic offers application programming interface (API).” Remarks at 11. Further, Applicant argues that the “claims require coordinated operation among the dynamic offers API, a parameter repository, a user data connectivity platform, persistent user and session identifiers, identifier translation between separate identity domains, and a machine learning framework that updates its underlying training dataset in response to monitored user interactions. These elements cooperate to improve the manner in which user interaction data is obtained from disparate external systems, reduce repeated processing through persistent identifier management, enable interface-specific rendering based upon dynamically retrieved configuration parameters, and continuously improve the operation of the machine learning model through real-time dataset updates.” Remarks at 12. Regarding the initial argument, a “distributed computer architecture” is not recited in the claims. Rather, for example, in claim 8, a singular system performs all the recited functions. While data may be sent/received to/from other systems, those systems are not part of the claimed system. These is all no support for a conclusion that “operation of a payment instrument service” is improved. Was there a technical problem in prior payment instrument services that is being solved by the claimed payment instrument service? The argument that an improvement is present is conclusory and not persuasive. Regarding the argument that the claims require coordinated operation, Examiner does not dispute that in order for systems to communicate, coordination is necessary. However, this does not amount to a practical application or significantly more as they are evaluated under the 35 USC § 101 analysis. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103, and additional search has been performed for the amended claims. The limitations are not found in an obvious combination of prior art references. Morin and Gopal, previously utilized in the non-final rejection (4/23/2026), remain the closest prior art. The rejections are 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, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-30 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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 22-24 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 8, 10, 12, 13, and 25-27 recite a system comprising one or more processors and memory which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 15, 17, 19, 20, and 28-30 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is considered a machine or manufacture. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-30 all fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) The “identifying a set of available offers, wherein the set of available offers corresponds to different entities associated with the payment instrument service” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claims 1, the “cause the system to” language in claim 8, or the “cause the computer system to” language in claim 15, the claim encompasses a user manually using given information to identify a set of offers. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) The “translating the identifying information into an external user identifier associated with the user, wherein the external user identifier corresponds to a user data connectivity platform that obtains user interaction data from different external sources, and wherein the user interaction data corresponds to interactions with different external online assets by the user” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claims 1, the “cause the system to” language in claim 8, or the “cause the computer system to” language in claim 15, the claim encompasses a user manually translating information into an identifier. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) The “identifying a set of rules corresponding to the set of available offers, wherein the set of rules defines a set of requirements for presentation of the set of available offers” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claims 1, the “cause the system to” language in claim 8, or the “cause the computer system to” language in claim 15, the claim encompasses a user manually using given information to identify a set of rules/requirements. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 5, 12, and 19) The “determining that the identifying information does not include the persistent user identifier and the session identifier” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claims 5, the “cause the system to” language in claim 12, or the “cause the computer system to” language in claim 19, the claim encompasses a user manually making a determination that the information does not include an identifier. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-30) These claims recite the concept of providing targeted offers to a user based on information known about the user and rues/requirements of the offers (see, for example, “receiving, through a dynamic offers application programming interface (API), an application programming interface (API) API call to identify one or more offers for rendering through an interface implemented through a landing page associated with a payment instrument service, wherein the API call includes identifying information associated with a user and with an ongoing online session, and wherein the API call is submitted during a request to access the landing page; querying a parameter repository using information corresponding to the landing page to obtain a set of offer parameters, wherein the set of offer parameters includes at least information corresponding to a configuration of the landing page; obtaining a persistent user identifier and a session identifier associated with the ongoing online session; translating the identifying information into an external user identifier associated with the user, wherein the external user identifier corresponds to a user data connectivity platform that obtains user interaction data from different external sources, and wherein the user interaction data corresponds to interactions with different external online assets by the user; transmitting a query to obtain the user interaction data, wherein the query includes the external user identifier, and wherein when the query is received by the user data connectivity platform, the user data connectivity platform provides the user interaction data; obtaining historical user interaction data associated with the persistent user identifier and current session interaction data associated with the session identifier; identifying a set of available offers, wherein the set of available offers corresponds to different entities associated with the payment instrument service; identifying a set of rules corresponding to the set of available offers, wherein the set of rules defines a set of requirements for presentation of the set of available offers; processing the user interaction data, the historical user interaction data, the current session interaction data, the set of offer parameters, the set of rules, and the set of available offers through a machine learning algorithm to automatically select a set of offers from the set of available offers, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset of historical sample user interaction data and corresponding offers presented to different users through the interface; transmitting executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a computing device of the user, cause the computing device to render the set of offers through the interface according to the set of offer parameters; monitoring, in real-time and through the interface, user interaction with the set of offers; and updating the dataset according to the user interaction with the set of offers, wherein the updated dataset is used to update the machine learning algorithm” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions, which includes advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. The dependent claims further refine this concept but do not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a computer (found in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 22-24), a system comprising one or more processors and memory storing thereon instructions (found in claims 8, 10, 12, 13, and 25-27), or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing hereon executable instructions (found in claims 15, 17, 19, 20, and 28-30) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computer, system, or medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights