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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection received 4/21/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks received 07/16/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 11 are canceled.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 are pending and have been examined.
This action is final, necessitated by amendment.
Summary of Claim Rejections
Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 1 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1, 5, and 7-10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant asserting the claims no longer invoke 112(f) claim interpretation – the examiner agrees, in light of the claim amendments received 07/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis, primarily because an ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea2. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2B Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2B and respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept for the following reasons:
The well-understood, routine, and conventional rationale must include involvement of the additional elements / components outside the abstract idea – not just the abstract idea itself. see TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C. 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748, underline and bold emphasis added: “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. I.e., The details of the abstract idea indicated by Applicant in remarks are an insufficient basis for patent eligibility under the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” rationale – see also the following case law and MPEP cites:
MPEP § 2106 I:
“eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claimed invention has utility, because "[u]tility is not the test for patent-eligible subject matter." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1380, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151:
“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” (emphasis omitted).
BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
MPEP § 2106.05, underline emphasis added:
“…An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”.
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 17-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature [i.e., where it lies entirely within the realm of abstract ideas,] is ineligible for patenting…Under the principles developed in interpreting §101, patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”
It is for the reasons / considerations above that Applicant’s arguments drawn to “a plurality of food assistance support organizations that provide … [a] … meal ticket paid for by the plurality of food assistance support organizations and redeemable for a free meal at a plurality of food and beverage establishments… a user to be provided with the free meal … according to “age” and “available food and beverage establishments from the plurality of food and beverage establishments in the service information that are available to provide the free meal to the user.””3 are not persuasive, as those arguments are drawn to details of the abstract idea recited and do not provide sufficient basis for why the additional elements themselves go beyond mere performance of well understood, routine, conventional activities. Furthermore, examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s contentions of eligibility because of the claims purportedly yielding a means for a user to search for such services4, as this is nothing beyond generic computer functionality – computers (e.g., smartphones) and applications are generally known to be able to submit queries and be returned results. In other words, Applicant’s claims, arguments, and specification do not base the purported improvements upon any details that are distinguishable from generic serach implementations being generally applied to a specific abstract idea recited (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claims applying generic computer elements to an abstract idea so as to provide their generally afforded benefits to the otherwise abstract business process is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem under step 2A analysis. Instead, it is indicative of the claims merely using computers as tools for the judicial exception within a particular technological environment, i.e., a technical solution to an abstract business problem, which is insufficient grounds for patent eligibility under Alice – See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result” and Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole amount to nothing more than merely invoking computers as a tool to perform an abstract process via computer components indistinguishable from general-purpose computers (See MPEP §2106.05(f)), supplemented with techniques of gathering and analyzing information which are conventional to the technological environment the claims are merely limited to - see TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and MPEP §2106.05(a). In summary, the claims do not indicate any specific steps undertaken by the computer elements themselves that are beyond conventional functionality of computers being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea the computers are merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of computers and computer applications with generic search capabilities. In view of the aforementioned, the claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem, as the ordered combination of the claimed elements do not indicate a solution that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
With respect to Applicant argument arguing that the present claims are not obvious in view of the prior art of record, and accordingly patent eligible, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of the argument and fails to find argument convincing. Case law makes clear that a lack of an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not confer patent eligibility to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”). See also MPEP § 2106.05 (“Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”);
Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. The claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by merely invoking computers as tools, and do not provide any particular improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field5 (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h), 2106.04(d)(1)). Merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself, as indicated by BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); (Step 2B: No, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).
Hence, for the reasons listed above, as well as the reasons provided in 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept6 under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and maintains the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
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, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test7. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are either directed to a system, product of manufacture, or method. Therefore, each of the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
Based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1, 5, and 7-10 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of ticket transactions for food assistance programs. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified method claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 10 is analogous to system claim 1, under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 11 (below) are similarly applied to claims 1, mutatis mutandis.
With respect Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis, claims 1, 5, and 7-10 recite as a whole a method of organizing human activity because independent claims 1 and 10 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“1. An … ticket-providing method comprising:
storing… service information that associates information related to a plurality of food assistance support organizations that provide an … meal ticket paid for by the plurality of food assistance support organizations and redeemable for a free meal at a plurality of food and beverage establishments by a distribution target person having a predetermined age to be provided with the free meal and user information that includes information related to an age of a user to be provided with the free meal;
receiving an … ticket-providing request from … the user, the … ticket- providing request including an instruction to search the plurality of food assistance support organizations for matching food assistance support organizations for which the age of the user corresponds to the predetermined age in the service information;
determining the matching food assistance support organizations for which the age of the user corresponds to the predetermined age in the service information;
transmitting service list display information indicating the matching food assistance support organizations to … the user;
receiving from … the user an identification of a food assistance support organization selected by the user from among the matching food assistance support organizations on a service list screen displayed … [for the] user based on the service list display information;
determining available food and beverage establishments from among the plurality of food and beverage establishments in the service information that are available to provide the free meal to the user;
transmitting establishment list display information indicating the available food and beverage establishments to … the user;
receiving from … the user an identification of a food and beverage establishment selected by the user from among the available food and beverage establishments on an establishment list screen displayed … [for the] user based on the establishment list display information;
determining menu list information of a plurality of menu items offered by the food and beverage establishment in the service information in fulfillment of the free meal paid for by the food assistance support organization;
transmitting the menu list information to … the user;
receiving from … the user an identification of a menu item selected by the user from among the plurality of menu items on a menu list screen displayed … [for the] the user based on the menu list information;
generating the … meal ticket indicating the menu item redeemable for the free meal to the user by the food and beverage establishment, paid for by the food assistance support organization; and
transmitting the electronic meal ticket to … the user.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, these are recitations of commercial interactions of performing ticket transactions based on user demographics for meal tickets. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1 and 10 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test:
The additional elements “An … apparatus comprising:”, “memory configured to”, “a processor configured to”, “electronic”, “an electronic apparatus of”, “the electronic apparatus of”, and “on a display of the electronic apparatus” of claim 1 and the additional elements “electronic”, “, in a memory,”, “an electronic apparatus of”, “the electronic apparatus of”, and “on a display of the electronic apparatus of the” of claim 11 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited ticket transactions based on user demographics – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)).
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract ticket transactions, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B, claims 1 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 10, each when viewed as a whole, do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as their elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ticket transactions concept within a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological details that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claims 1 and 10 utilize additional elements such as an apparatus comprising memory, processors, and computer logic (e.g., code), the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited, as even the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Worded differently, the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, as nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of generic computing devices being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of computers. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Hence, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims have been given the full analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim fails to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claim limitations “…the processor is configured to…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 7, its limitations fail to provide any further additional elements outside the abstract idea, and only further specify the abstract ticket processing concept. Furthermore, their limitations do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of their respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claim 7 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim fails to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claim limitations “… the processor is configured to…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim fails to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claim limitations “… wherein the processor is further configured to…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claim 9 is also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 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 MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter claimed.
2 See pages 7-10 of Applicant Remarks received 07/16/2026.
3 Page 9 of Remarks.
4 Page 10 or Remarks.
5 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
6 I.e., “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
7 See MPEP § 2106 I.
Prosecution Insights