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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/22/2025 has been entered.
This application claims earliest priority from KR 10-2021-0183806, filed 12/21/2021.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 have been canceled, and claim 5 has been amended.
Claim 5 is currently pending and has been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 5 does not provide a technical improvement to a computer related problem or any technical features that enhance transaction security. There is no indication that the claims enhance transaction security. None of the claimed features allows users to perform transaction more securely nor does addressing the issue of theft or illegal duplication of not only the digital virtual card registered but also the physical payment card, indicate any technical solutions. There is no technical detail on how the location of the physical card is used to produce any practical technical improvements to a computer related problem. The additional elements are merely invoked as tools to apply the abstract idea and automate the process without significantly more. Claim 5 may recite an improvement to a business process by implementing a system for transaction monitoring, location tracking, and distance-based transaction validation, however, not a specific technical improvement that enhances transaction security and an improvement to the abstract idea is still abstract. Unlike the claims seen in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the current claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology and do not overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology.
The argues Step 2A, Prong 2, that the alleged abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical application, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements, may be real devices used to perform the recited steps of the claims, however, these elements, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of those elements. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality and merely apply the abstract idea in a generic technological environment. The combination of generic computer elements does not make the abstract idea less abstract. The elements when considered in combination or taken individually, each represent generic computing functionality including generic steps and structure and merely applying the abstract idea in a technological computer environment to automate a business process without significantly more. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. There is no indication that the claims recite specific structures and steps which solve a specific payment transaction security problem. At most, the claims may recite an improvement to a business practice, however, that is still abstract.
For at least the above reasons, the examiner respectfully submits that the claims of the current application maintain rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 5 is directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 5 recites a series of steps for making a request for final payment approval; making a request for payment approval, and transmitting the fact that the payment approval is obtained, when the payment approval is completed; and making a request for suspension of use of the payment card used for the blocked transaction when the user confirmation input details are not input for a predetermined time period or when the transaction is automatically canceled due to the distance exceeding the preset distance; i.e. business relation, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 5, stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows:
inputting payment card information;
generating transaction information on the basis of an input quantity and an input amount;
inputting the linked payment card;
recognizing the input payment card;
making a request for linkage verification to check whether the payment card input is the payment card linked;
checking whether the input payment card is the linked payment card and transmitting the result;
transmitting the transaction information;
transmitting a notification message for checking the transaction information transaction attempt from in the form of an application pop-up notification and a text message;
receiving the transaction information, giving a notification, and running the user terminal application;
outputting the transaction information, a tip setting input window, a direct signature window, and a biological information input window of a user by an output part of the user terminal, and inputting user confirmation input details using the biological information of the user, together with the tip setting and the direct signature of the user, to an input part;
transmitting the input tip setting and the input user confirmation input details;
transmitting the tip setting and the user confirmation input details;
outputting the tip setting and information on whether the user is authenticated, according to the suer confirmation input details to the screen;
making a request for final payment approval;
making a request to a card company for payment approval, and transmitting the fact that the payment approval is obtained, when the payment approval from the card company is completed;
outputting a transaction result as an electronic receipt on the screen or as paper receipt, and outputting, a transaction result as an electronic receipt on a screen and concurrently an advertisement video containing a voice, an advertisement image, and advertisement text of a concerned affiliated-store;
transmitting a location verification message upon receiving the input tip setting and the input user confirmation input details,
outputs the location check message as a notification and transmits location information, receives location information where the payment card was used, calculates a distance between the user and the payment where the payment card was used,
transmitting a blockage record to the user when the distance is greater than a preset distance which can be configured and adjusted by the user, and cancelling the transaction through a process of outputting the blockage record as a notification; and
making a request for suspension of use of the payment card used for the blocked transaction through the user when the user confirmation input details are not input for a predetermined time period or when the transaction is automatically canceled due to the distance exceeding the preset distance.
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed towards making a request for final payment approval. Therefore, claim 5 is also related to a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to a “commercial or legal interaction” (i.e. business relations) and relating to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (i.e. including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements of a “a user terminal”, “payment terminal”, “application server”, “card reader” and “terminal device” are recited at a high-level of generality i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions such as processing data. These additional elements describe how to generally “apply” the judicial exception in a computer environment and simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The claim does not include additional elements individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed 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 generic computer components i.e. computing processor.
The same analysis applies here in 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. Further, receiving and transferring data are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696