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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22-26 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 27-29 have been added, and are rejected.
Claims 5, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 21 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/26/2026 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 2/26/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as the claims have been amended to recite changes in functionality to the user interface itself to emphasize a location-based alteration of functionality of the user interface. Citation is made to paragraphs [0019] and [0021] of the specification, which discloses to add additional orders to the open ticket and utilize the visual representation, changing buttons depending on the location of the customer. On page 14, arguments are made that the claims do more than display information of the transactions on the interface, and changes the screen for an open ticket from “merge” in a restaurant/bar to “route to driver” in a delivery transaction. On pages 15-17, the Applicant cites Core Wireless in comparison, as the user interface functionality is altered based on customer location, and messages and/or alerts are generated and provided specific to the type of transaction. On page 18, comparisons are drawn to Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which relocates icons on a graphical user interface closest to the start icon based on a determined amount of use, and the present claims recite changing a functionality of a user interface to match it to a certain location of a customer to which the user interface pertains. On pages 18-19, comparisons are drawn to Data Engine Techs, which the courts found to be eligible because the claims recited a specific structure within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function. In the present claims, recite a specific structure within a user interface that performs a specific function and allow for rapid access and processing of information, similar to Date Engine Techs, and provide an improvement to a functioning of a computer. On pages 20-21, the Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of features in the claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to displaying the operations for a transaction flow, which is a sales activity, and an abstract idea. The claims do not recite changes to how an interface functions, the interface merely displays different operations of the abstract idea, and functions in a generic manner. How the location of the user is determined is not recited in the claims, and can be interpreted as any manual input by any user. The additional orders and changing the buttons merely represents displaying different operations of the abstract idea based on a determined type of transaction flow that a user determines from the location of the customer. The interface merely displays different information regarding the transaction process., and the changing of an open ticket from “merge” to “route to driver” only represents aspects of the transaction flow. As such, the comparisons to Core Wireless and Example 37 are inapposite. In Core Wireless, the claims were directed to technical problems where data and functionality needed to be divided into many layers and views because of technical limitations, such as small screens, and the claims contained precise language delimiting a limited set of information to a user such that the summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. In comparison, the present claims display an updated visual representation of the transaction flow, and other aspects of the abstract idea. In Example 37, claim 1 was found to be eligible because a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user provided specific improvement over prior systems. In comparison, the present claims do not recite a specific manner of performing interface-specific functionalities, but are directed to updating a display with elements that pertain to the abstract idea of transaction flows, and any changes in functionality are not to how the interface operates, but to operations of the transaction flow itself. With regard to Data Engine Techs, the courts have issued a non-precedential decision, and while the Examiner appreciates the arguments, the Examiner does not agree that the facts of the present application are reasonably tied to the fact pattern employed by the court in Data Engine Techs. Current USPTO policy is dictated by the body of precedential case law. The present claims may be a non-conventional, and non-generic arrangement, but are only so within the abstract idea itself. The claims merely recite generic interface functionality to automate the guiding of a transaction flow on a computing device.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 22-29 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 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22-26 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;
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;
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 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.
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, 20, and 12-26 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, 20, and 12-26 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 claims2-4, 6-8, 11, 16, 20, and 12-26 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, 20, and 12-26 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, 20, and 12-26 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, 20, and 12-26 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, 20, and 12-26 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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22-29 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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22-29 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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22-29 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
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: 7:30 - 5:00.
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 5/12/2026
Prosecution Insights