DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-37 are pending in this application.
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 21-24 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-24 and 30-36 are directed to a method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product claim 30. Claim 21 recites the limitations of conducting secured transaction by using an image (such as a QR code).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Generating a user interface, receiving transaction details, sending request to create a “secure transaction image” (the request does not include customer personal info), receiving the a “secure transaction image” (“secure transaction image” = unique image representing transaction details, such as QR code see para 51 and Fig. 6), displaying the “secure transaction image”, receiving a transaction status information, and generating graphical information, highlighting information – specifically, the claim recites “generating a user interface operable to receive the one or more transaction detail; receiving… one or more transaction details… upon determining that one or more required transaction details have been received… enabling a user interface element operable to initiate the creation of a secure image… in response to receiving a selection of the user interface element, sending… a request to create a secure transaction image… wherein the request does not include sensitive personal information for a responding party to the transaction… receiving… the secure transaction image… wherein the secure transaction image is a unique user provided image digitally modified based upon the one or more transaction such that the secure transaction image is an optical representation of encoded and encrypted data comprising transaction details, the secure transaction image being optically distinct from the user provided image; displaying the secure transaction image… in a manner that allows the secure transaction image to be optically identified… wherein the responding device is associated with the responding party; and after displaying the secure transaction image… receiving… status information related to the transaction… generating, based upon the received status information, a graphical indication… to highlight the status information in a manner that draws attention to the status information”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk. The claims clearly recite commercial interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a user interface”, “requesting device”, “network”, “a display device”, “server”, in claim 21; and the additional technical element of “a computer readable medium”, “processor”, and “responding device”, in claim 30, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 30 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as requesting device, server, processor, and responding device; a communication device such as a user interface, a display device, and network; and a storage unit such as a computer readable medium. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 21 and 30 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 21 and 30 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 21 and 30 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 22 discloses the limitation of wherein the requesting device is a payee device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “payee device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 discloses the limitation of the responding device is a payor device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “payor device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24 discloses the limitation of sending the request further- comprises sending the one or more transaction details to the server, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 31 discloses the limitation of in response to receiving the request to complete the transaction from the responding device, providing a response to the requesting device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 32 discloses the limitation of providing the response comprises sending a confirmation of the transaction to the requesting device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 33 discloses the limitation of authenticating the responding device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34 discloses the limitation of authenticating the responding device comprises checking the location of the responding device against a known location for the requesting device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 35 discloses the limitation of sensitive personal information for the responding party to the transaction comprises at least one of: financial institution information; account information; and a unique personal identifier, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 36 discloses the limitation of sensitive personal information for the responding party to the transaction comprises any of: financial institution information; account information; and a unique personal identifier, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 21-24 and 30-36 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The Squires Memo acknowledges… Especially with new and emerging technologies, the "something more" may be particularly challenging to divine so we need to evaluate, for example, how the invention is applied, how it operates and/or what it accomplished. For instance, when the claimed system changes the architecture itself-e.g., how information flows, not just what it does-that may satisfy eligibility… Applicants respectfully submit that the claims of the present application provide the same types of improvement to software, network architecture, and information flow…Aspects of the present disclosure relate to a secure method to provide payment from one party to another using an open network, such as the Internet. The secure image provides security for the transaction by identifying transactions in a manner that may only be deciphered by one or more trusted servers, such as a transaction core 110 from FIG. 1. As such, the use of a secure image may prevent or otherwise limit the exposure of sensitive user identity and/or transaction information without requiring the use of a closed, secure network to provide security for the transaction. That is, aspects of the present disclosure provide an improvement to the information flow in open networks that allow data to be securely transferred over an open network (emphasis original’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no changes in “the architecture itself”. Any improvement to the “information flow” here – if any – can be attributed to the business model/process. This includes the above cited process of sending secret message that can be decrypted by a designated party. There is no technical innovation involved.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“In embodiments, even the payor device and payee device involved in the transaction are not able to process the secure image. The secure image may represent a particular transaction between two parties. As such, any funds transferred using the secure image may only be transferred between the parties involved in the transaction. As such, the secure image may act as a secure identifier that may be transmitted over an open network, such as the Internet, without compromising security of the parties involved in the transaction, even if the secure image is intercepted by an unauthorized party because the unauthorized party will not be able to decipher any of the transaction details from the secure image alone. Aspects disclosed and claimed herein provide both graphical indications to clearly convey status information related to the transaction and mechanisms to complete the transaction by coordinating actions between different devices,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Having a prearrange deciphering method with a counterparty is an abstract idea. The claims do not improve computer network security. As stated in the prior office action:
“This is a business model/decision have a particular agreed-upon image as a symbol for authentication. This is not a technical improvement as required under 35 U.S.C. § 101”.
And
“The additional steps of encrypting the symbol is another business step added to the process. It’s important to note that the claims are not improving encryption technology. The additional steps/procedures do not make the claims non-abstract”.
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 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 MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693