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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Appeal Brief filed 01/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 8, and 17 being independent).
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is a second Non-Final Action in reply to the Appeal Brief filed 01/26/2026.
Appellant asserts that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Appellant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Appellant’s argument, see pages 17-25:
Argument (1): Step 2A, Prong One -The Claims do not Recite a Judicial Exception (see Appellant’s arguments, pages 17-20)
“However, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 do not recite a contactless payment or a commercial transaction. Instead, the claims recite utilizing a contactless card to gain access or entry to a physical space. Although claims 6 and 13 recite receiving a payment request and providing payment information, these claims are also not directed to a judicial exception for at least the reasons applicable to their respective base claims 1 and 8.”
In response (1): The cited limitations as drafted are systems or methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of NFC-based device. Performing a validation of the user authentication information to gain access or entry to a physical space such as a door or gate using a credit card (e.g., a contactless card) 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Argument (2): Step 2A, Prong Two - The Claims Integrate any Judicial Exception into a Practical Application (see Appellant’s arguments, pages 20-23)
“As discussed above, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 do not recite a payment transaction and the contactless card is not performing a generic function In contrast, the current claims include technological improvements by utilizing the contactless card, e.g., utilizing secure encryption techniques with one or more session keys to enable a contactless card to gain access to a space via an in-vehicle device and with information stored on the contactless card, and not merely something that qualifies as an abstract idea.”
In response (2): 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 claim limits of: 1) “a contactless card”, “near field communication (NFC)”, and “in-vehicle device” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component and/or computer network (e.g. “apply it”). 2) ‘sending user authentication information to in-vehicle device by the contactless card’ describes transmitting data to a computer device. The “contactless card” is not described in the specification in such a way that requires anything more than merely a generically touchless payment transaction, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic touchless payment card over a short range communication e.g., NFC, Bluetooth, etc. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent). (3) “in-vehicle device”, again describes a computer component, which amounts to simply applying the abstract idea of a short range communication device (e.g., NFC, Bluetooth, etc.) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim limits also recite the use of a contactless card, near field communication (NFC), in-vehicle device, one or more remote computing devices, a wireless interface, memory configured to store instructions, processing circuitry, a receiving device, and an access transponder as additional elements. However, the use of these additional elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Argument (3): Step 2B - The Claims Include an Inventive Concept (see Appellant’s arguments, pages 24-25)
“The "'inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art,' and "an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements”
In response (3): The recited claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (aka “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using a computer. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
In the claim 1, the clause “wherein, in response to the user being authorized to gain access or entry to the physical space, the access transponder is further configured for sending a control signal to a controller of a door or gate of the physical space to open the door or gate, thereby providing access or entry to the physical space.” is interpreted as an intended use/field of use of “the access transponder is further configured for sending …”. The intended use in the claim merely states the result of the limitation in the claim and adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 26 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 22); Amazon.com Inc. v. Bamesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (Fed. Cir. 21). Such field of use/intended use limitations are also present in amended claims 8 and 17. Hence the intended use limitations are not given patentable weight.
In general, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
statements of intended use or field of use,
"adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
"wherein" clauses, or
"whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
11. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the receiving device” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be --a receiving device --.
Dependent claims (18-20) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) 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, (2a) 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 (2b), 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).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method for performing a validation of the user authentication information to gain access or entry to a physical space such as a door or gate which contains the steps of establishing, sending, initiating, receiving and determining. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, claim 8 is direct to a contactless card, and claim 17 is direct to a computer-readable storage medium, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for performing a validation of the user authentication information to gain access or entry to a physical space such as a door or gate is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {establishing…, sending… user authentication information …, wherein the user authentication information is associated with a user … and comprises a counter value and shared secret encrypted with one or more session keys; sending the user authentication information …. authenticating the user authentication information received … and determining whether the user is authorized to gain access or entry to a physical space; in response to the user being authorized to gain access or entry to the physical space, ……, thereby providing access or entry to the physical space.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as sending user authentication information and validating the user authentication information received in order to gain access to a physical space such as a gate.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements:
1) “a contactless card”, “near field communication (NFC)”, “in-vehicle device”, and “an access transponder” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer network and/or a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”)
2) ‘sending user authentication information to in-vehicle device by the contactless card’, describes transmitting data to a generic device. The “contactless card” is not described in the specification in such a way that requires anything more than merely a generically touchless payment transaction, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a touchless payment card over a short range communication e.g., NFC, Bluetooth, etc. (e.g. instructions to “apply it” or the equivalent)
3) “in-vehicle device” (e.g., an access transponder), again describes a generical computer component (e.g., a toll transponder), which amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component (e.g. “apply it”) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (e.g., a contactless card, near field communication (NFC), in-vehicle device, an access transponder, one or more remote computing devices, a wireless interface, memory, instructions, processing circuitry, a receiving device) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0023-0024], client device, a network-enabled computer, a computer device, communications device (e.g., a server, a network appliance, a personal computer, a workstation, a phone, a smartphone, wearable mobile device, etc.), processor, a memory, one or more application (e.g., software application), network communications with one or more components of system) as apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an 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 above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., a contactless card, near field communication (NFC), in-vehicle device, an access transponder, one or more remote computing devices, a wireless interface, memory, instructions, processing circuitry, a receiving device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using a computer. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 2, 9 and 18, the step of “… generating… a cryptogram the authentication information to send …” (i.e., generating the code), in claims 3, 10, and 19, the step of “… wherein the authentication information further comprises a random number.” (i.e., containing a random number), in claims 4 and 11, the step of “… comprising encrypting, … the cryptogram ....” (i.e., encrypting the code), in claims 5 and 12, the step of “… wherein the cryptogram is generated by ....” (i.e., generating the code), in claims 6 and 13, the step of “… receiving, … a request to provide payment … and sending, … payment information to provide a payment …” (i.e., receiving a request and sending payment data), in claim 7, the step of “… … process a request to gain access to the physical space....” (i.e., processing a request), in claims 14 and 20, the step of “… process a request to gain access to the physical space by communicating the authentication information....” (i.e., processing a request), in claim 15, the step of “… comprising ....” (i.e., comprising…), and in claim 16, the step of “… wherein a unique identifier assigned to a user of ….” (i.e., assigning an identifier to a user) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Performing a payment transaction using a short range communication such as a Near Filed Communication (NFC) is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 8, and 17 above. Merely claiming the same process using a credit card to perform a validation of the user authentication information to gain access to a physical space such as a gate does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
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 M. Sigmond can be reached on (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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
March 24, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694