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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 22, and 24-29 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21, and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 30-32 have been added, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/14/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/14/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on page 14 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they recite a change of state in a shared data structure and a consequent change in operation of a different device, and recites a technical improvement. On pages 14-15, comparisons are drawn to Example 42, which was allowable under Step 2A (Prong 2) as reciting a specific improvement by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format, regardless of what format in which the information was input by the user. The Applicant argues that the present claims have been amended to be similar to the fact pattern of Example 42 by reciting storing an open ticket data structure with associated versioning data structure, updating the vector of the associated versioning data structure to generate an updated associated versioning data structure, which converts an outdated data structure, permitting the open ticket data structure to be reconciled across merchant computing devices in near real-time (standardizing the old and new tickets), and updating the open ticket data structure stored locally on the second computing device. The present claims are then contrasted with claim 2 of Example 42, which was deemed ineligible, and how the present claims recite more than just the storing information, providing access so that a user could update it, and storing the updated information. On pages 16-18, comparisons are drawn to Uniloc, which recite a primary station that added “to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station” and the court ruled that the claims “do not merely recite generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity” and “this change in the manner of transmitting data results in reduced response time by peripheral devices which are part of the claimed system”. The Applicant argues that the second computing device did not initially receive the second user input and did not perform the second functionality without the versioning data structure to conform its locally stored open ticket data structure to the updated open ticket data structure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims have been amended to recite the versioning data structure comprising a vector, these elements do not change or improve how computers store and retrieve data, or communicate. The vector merely keeps a count of the number of times an open ticket is updated, and then updating the open ticket information based on the versioning data structure matching on the second device (specification: [0049]; [0082]). However, there is no explanation to any particularity of the data structure and how it improves the ability of the computer. What is represented is more of simply transmitting and matching data. The comparisons to Example 42 are also inapposite after further consideration. A key component in the eligibility of claim 1 of Example 42, as detailed in the specification and the claims, was the converting updated information in a non-standardized form to a standardized format. The standardizing was not in the organization or format of the data or normalizing data, but to the changing of the file format structure. While the converting of non-standardized formats are compared to the generating of an updated associated data structure to convert the outdated data structure corresponding to an outdated ticket consistent with the first computing device, this is different from the converting of the non-standardized information into the standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the one of the users. The present claims represent providing an indication of an update of data, and matching the data on another device as opposed to the automatic converting of file formats across systems. The conforming of the local copy of the open ticket data structure does not entail any conversion of file formats, but merely updating to the latest information of the open ticket. With regard to the comparison to Uniloc, it is not precedential case law, and current USPTO policy is dictated by the body of precedential case law. The case of Uniloc was directly related to technical changes, such as communication with a peripheral device using Bluetooth messaging schemes, while the present claims are directed to managing the steps for an open ticket, and updating open ticket information. The functionality of the second device remains unchanged, the functionality does not pertain to any ability of the computer, but only to the abstract idea of managing the open ticket.
On pages 18-19, it is argued that the claims apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such as by reciting user interfaces including a visual representation of a plurality of interactive elements corresponding to functionalities associated with a transaction flow, updating the visual representations associated with a second transaction flow, and the various open ticket data structure, versioning data structure, and updating of the open ticket data structure stored locally on the second device. On pages 19-20, the Applicant argues that the claims provide significantly more than the alleged abstract idea by synchronizing the computing devices using the versioning data structure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the visual representations of the interactive elements corresponding to functionalities associated with a transaction flow merely provide the performance of managing the transaction flow of the ticket, which is an abstract idea, to be performed using a computing device. Neither the claims nor the specification recite/disclose any particularity to how these functionalities change or improve any computer ability. The various data structures to synchronize the devices are also generally disclosed, such that it is merely the transmitting and receiving of updated data, and merely updating data information in real-time, without any particular change in computer ability. Newly added claims 30-32 also merely recite the receiving and updating of updated information. As discussed above, there is no disclosure to how the various data structures are generated, and how they change how the computer functions. The data structures are merely disclosed as maintaining a vector and updating the information.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 22, and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 22-32 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 9, 11, and 16 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 22, and 24-32 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 9 as representative, claim 9 sets forth the following limitations (emphasized in bold) reciting the abstract idea of selecting and displaying a template for a transaction flow:
presenting, via a user interface of a computing device of a merchant, a visual representation associated with a first transaction flow, wherein the visual representation includes a plurality of first interactive elements corresponding to first functionalities associated with first operations in the first transaction flow;
determining, based at least in part on a first user input to the user interface, a predefined zone of a plurality of predefined zone of a physical establishment of the merchant where the customer associated with a transaction is located at a time of the first user input;
determining, based at least in part on the predefined zone, an updated visual representation associated with a second transaction flow corresponding to the transaction, wherein the updated visual representation is associated with second functionalities associated with the second transaction flow;
causing, based at least in part on the second transaction flow, a change in a portion of the user interface from a first functionality of the first functionalities to a second functionality of the second functionalities, wherein the portion corresponds to at least one of a plurality of second interactive elements corresponding to second functionalities;
presenting, via the user interface, the updated visual representation;
receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a second user input to a second interactive elements of the plurality of second interactive elements corresponding to the second functionality;
responsive to receiving the indication of the second user input, causing performance of the second functionality, wherein the second functionality comprises merging an open ticket associated with the transaction with an additional open ticket, modifying a type of transaction, processing a payment for the transaction, or routing instructions associated with the transaction to a delivery service;
updating, by the first computer device, a open ticket data structure corresponding to the open ticket to create an updated open ticket data structure, wherein the open ticket data structure includes an associated versioning data structure comprising a vector, wherein updating the open ticket data structure comprises updating the vector to generate an updated associated versioning data structure indicating that the open ticket data structure was updated;
transmitting, by the first computing device to a second computing device of the merchant, ticket data associated with the updated open ticket data structure, the ticket data including the updated associated versioning data structure, wherein the updated associated versioning data structure causes the second computing device to (i) determine that the open ticket data structure was updated by the first computing device, and (ii) update a separate open ticket data structure stored locally on the second computing device to correspond to the updated open ticket data structure;
based at least in part on the second user input and the second transaction flow, causing an update to the user interface in near real-time with receiving the indication of the second user input, wherein the update comprises display of a message on the updated visual representation, wherein the message is associated with a next second operation in the second transaction flow.
The recited limitations above set forth the abstract idea of selecting and displaying a template for a transaction flow. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims recite steps for selecting and displaying a predefined template for a transaction, and presenting visual representation of the operations of the transaction flow (see specification [0014-0015] disclosing managing an open ticket for a transaction), which is a sales activity and behavior.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 9 recites additional limitations in the claims, such as:
a user interface of a device operable by a merchant;
one or more processors;
one or more computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors;
presenting, via a user interface of a computing device of a merchant, a visual representation associated with a first transaction flow, wherein the visual representation includes a plurality of first interactive elements corresponding to first functionalities associated with first operations in the first transaction flow;
determining, based at least in part on a first user input to the user interface, a predefined zone of a plurality of predefined zone of a physical establishment of the merchant where the customer associated with a transaction is located at a time of the first user input;
determining, based at least in part on the predefined zone, an updated visual representation associated with a second transaction flow corresponding to the transaction, wherein the updated visual representation is associated with second functionalities associated with the second transaction flow;
causing, based at least in part on the second transaction flow, a change in a portion of the user interface from a first functionality of the first functionalities to a second functionality of the second functionalities, wherein the portion corresponds to at least one of a plurality of second interactive elements corresponding to second functionalities;
presenting, via the user interface, the updated visual representation;
receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a second user input to a second interactive elements of the plurality of second interactive elements corresponding to the second functionality;
responsive to receiving the indication of the second user input, causing performance of the second functionality, wherein the second functionality comprises merging an open ticket associated with the transaction with an additional open ticket, modifying a type of transaction, processing a payment for the transaction, or routing instructions associated with the transaction to a delivery service;
updating, by the first computer device, a open ticket data structure corresponding to the open ticket to create an updated open ticket data structure, wherein the open ticket data structure includes an associated versioning data structure comprising a vector, wherein updating the open ticket data structure comprises updating the vector to generate an updated associated versioning data structure indicating that the open ticket data structure was updated;
transmitting, by the first computing device to a second computing device of the merchant, ticket data associated with the updated open ticket data structure, the ticket data including the updated associated versioning data structure, wherein the updated associated versioning data structure causes the second computing device to (i) determine that the open ticket data structure was updated by the first computing device, and (ii) update a separate open ticket data structure stored locally on the second computing device to correspond to the updated open ticket data structure;
based at least in part on the second user input and the second transaction flow, causing an update to the user interface in near real-time with receiving the indication of the second user input, wherein the update comprises display of a message on the updated visual representation, wherein the message is associated with a next second operation in the second transaction flow.
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 9 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Secondly, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite processors, computer-executable media, and a user interface of a device operable by a merchant, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. Specification paragraph [0023], the merchant device and the system are disclosed very generally that they may include one or more processors, computer-readable media, a display, and a network interface. Paragraph [0026] goes on to disclose the processors may include a CPU, GPU, both CPU and GPU, or other processing units or components known in the art. The computer readable media is disclosed in paragraph [0027] that it may include RAM, ROM, flash memory, miniature hard drive, or some combination thereof. As such, it is evident that these elements are all generic computing components with no particularity. They are generic computers with generic components, merely being utilized to provide a general link to a computing environment. Figures 5A-5B disclose user interfaces of the system, that merely display the information of the transaction, and the functionalities merely refer to operations of the transaction itself. It is evident from the above cited portions of the specification and the figures, that the interfaces are any generic display of a computer to present information regarding the transaction flow to a merchant to process. The limitations of updating and transmitting the open ticket data structure including the versioning data structure are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by providing data to update a log (data gathering: see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The various data structures are also not disclosed with any particularity to change a computer’s ability to store and retrieve data. Specification paragraphs [0049] and [0082] disclose a vector with a counter for the number of updates and updating the open ticket information based on the counter, but does not define any particular method of how a computer stores and retrieves data from memory. The various data structures merely represent information organized in conventional data storage methods, and updating the information of the abstract idea. The additional elements are generic elements that are merely recited at a very high level of generality to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in representative claim 9 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. The steps of updating an open ticket data structure, including an associated versioning data structure comprising a vector, wherein updating the open ticket data structure comprises updating the vector to generate an updated associated versioning data structure and transmitting the ticket data including the updated associated versioning data structure to determine that the open ticket data structure was updated and update a separate open ticket data structure stored locally on the second computing device merely describe transmitting, matching, and updating information between devices, which has been re-evaluated I step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Specification paragraph [0049] disclose that the data structure is simply a vector with a basic counter for the number of times it was updated, and there is no further disclosure of any other particular structure, which shows that it is any mathematical construct that can store a number. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) also discloses how the courts have found mere storing and retrieving of information is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 9 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 1 (method), claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 9 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 9.
Regarding Claim 18 (computer-readable media), claim 18 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 9 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 18 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 9.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 9, such as by further defining the algorithm for selecting and displaying a template for a transaction flow. Thus, each of claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 9. Any additional elements (e.g., a data structure (claim 11); a customer device (claim 25); one or more other computer devices (claim 27)) are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 9. Thus, dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 22, and 24-32 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a restatement of the reasons for indicating subject matter free of the prior art that was previously mailed on 6/5/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 22, and 24-32 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of the prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 22, and 24-32 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claimed features of:
determining, based at least in part on the predefined zone, an updated visual representation associated with a second transaction flow corresponding to the transaction, wherein the updated visual representation is associated with second functionalities associated with the second transaction flow;
causing, based at least in part on the second transaction flow, a change in a portion of the user interface from a first functionality of the first functionalities to a second functionality of the second functionalities, wherein the portion corresponds to at least one of a plurality of second interactive elements corresponding to the second functionalities;
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Varma (US 9,959,529 B1) discloses col. 14, ln. 60-col. 15, ln. 4 – “The merchant device 104 includes a tab generation module 1014. The tab generation module 1014 is a component of the merchant device 104 operable to receive input from a merchant or merchant employee specifying an item purchased in a transaction and a price of each item. The tab generation module 1014 then generates an open tab, which can be modified by the customer device 102 or other merchant devices located in a same venue where the merchant device 104 is located”.
Inderrieden (US 9,310,880 B2) discloses col. 3, ln. 39-48 – “image processing application 40 may determine gender, approximate age, ethnicity, group status, presence of children, and other anonymous characteristics associated with a customer. Self-service application 14 uses this classification information to choose and tailor any of different templates, workflows, menu options, promotions, suggestive sell options, instructions, color contrast and schemes, font size audio prompts and levels, avatars, voices and/or other user interface features from self-service application data 18 based upon rules”.
Romero (US 10,275,765 B2) discloses col. 16, ln. 7-16 – “identifying a plurality of flow chain elements in a transaction flow of a user session; at operation 514, causing the presentation of a first flow chain element in the transaction flow in an interface of a first user device; at operation 516, causing the presentation of a second flow chain element in the transaction flow in an interface of a second user device; and at operation 518, preserving a state of the user in the session when causing the presentation of the second flow chain element in the second user device”.
NPL-Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 6/5/2025) discloses workflow-based electronic marketplaces, describing exploiting workflow technology. Workflow templates for electronic commerce results in detailed logging of the processes and the ability to specify data and control flow among components, and helps buyers and sellers for more efficient business.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
determining, based at least in part on the predefined zone, an updated visual representation associated with a second transaction flow corresponding to the transaction, wherein the updated visual representation is associated with second functionalities associated with the second transaction flow;
causing, based at least in part on the second transaction flow, a change in a portion of the user interface from a first functionality of the first functionalities to a second functionality of the second functionalities, wherein the portion corresponds to at least one of a plurality of second interactive elements corresponding to the second functionalities;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 22, and 24-32 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
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 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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm 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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 9/24/2026
