DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “One or more computer storage media” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer storage medium can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).-see MPEP §2106.03 II.
It is recommended that the preamble recite for example, “One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing…”.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 17 to illustrate, the limitations of at least one processor, one or more computer storage media storing computer readable instructions that when executed by processor perform claimed operations, and a database as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interaction, , but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for systems and methods that process trade credit purchase approval from a credit manager using an open loop payment network which is a commercial interaction. The mere nominal recitation of at least one generic processor, one or more computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by processor perform claimed operations, and a database do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— at least one processor, one or more computer storage media storing computer readable instructions that when executed by processor perform claimed operations, and a database. The processor, computer storage media, and database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving a request to authorize a purchase, determining based on a query of a database which child account the purchase should be authorized to, communicating a request for authorization, receiving a set of transaction details, automatically generating an invoice, and communicating invoice to buyer) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Accordingly, 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.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 1 and 20 and hence claims 1 and 20 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 17. In addition, claim 1 recites one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instruction that when executed by one or more processers cause processors to perform claimed operations and claim 20 recites a computer-implemented method comprising at least one processor and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instruction that when executed by one or more processers cause processors to perform claimed operations that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using at least one processor, one or more computer storage media storing computer readable instructions that when executed by processor perform claimed operations, and a database to perform the claimed functions, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-16, 18-19 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s)1-20 is/are ineligible.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0173772 (Hayes et al.)-cited for trade credit transaction processing including generation of an invoice.
US 2012/0101881 (Taylor et al.)-cited for private label credit processing transactions through an open loop system.
US 2012/0226582 (Hammad)-integration of payment capability including primary credit card and sub-accounts liked to the primary account.
US 2009/0192904 (Patterson et al.)-cited for a system for conducting transactions including multiple linked accounts.
US 2015/0178835 (Quillian)-cited for its reference to electronic commerce financing including enabling supply chain participants to collaborate to enable a supplier to negotiate with a financial institution including trade credit, order-to-cash cycles and settling of invoices.
US 2020/0342425 (Tosmur)-cited for account balance sharing system including a main account owner defining a right of use for the sub-users, open loop payment tools.
US 2017/0200160 (Kumar et al.)- cited for restricting account use by controlled replenishment including sub-accounts of primary account, open loop payment systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights