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 communication(s) filed on 08 July 2026.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16, 20 and 22 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-25 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant begins by presenting an overview of how 101 analysis is performed. Applicant’s arguments substantially begin on page 12 of the remarks dated 08 July 2026.
Step 2A Prong One
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption"). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that "patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, the attempt to limit the breadth of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9855, 17-18 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015). With regards to identification of the abstract idea Examiner notes the following: Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Applicant argues through the end of page 13 and the top of page 14 that the claims are not directed to a mental process because the reset operation cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion and notes, as cited above, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception means that the claim recites an abstract idea. The presence of one limitation that would be considered to not be abstract does not preclude the entire claim from being directed to an abstract idea. Regardless, the claims were not asserted to be under the Mental Process grouping therefore arguments relating to said grouping are moot.
Applicant argues that the Guidelines instruct that the analysis should not proceed beyond prong 1 absent a rare circumstance. Examiner respectfully notes that this quote appears to be misquoted. Applicant appears to be quoting MPEP §2106.04(a) which recites: “If the identified limitation(s) do not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to find that the claim does not recite an abstract idea. This concludes the abstract idea judicial exception eligibility analysis, except in the rare circumstance discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3), below. The claim is thus eligible at Pathway B unless the claim recites, and is directed to, another exception (such as a law of nature or natural phenomenon).” This “rare circumstance” refers to establishing a tentative abstract idea which does not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas. “There may be rare circumstances in which an examiner believes a claim limitation should be treated as an abstract idea even though it does not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes). This type of claim limitation is referred to as a "tentative abstract idea."” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(3). This section does not apply to the instant Office Action as the claims were noted to fall within one of the already enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. Commercial or Legal Interactions).
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues on page 16 that the claims are directed to a technical improvement of increased security for sensitive data by preventing the sensitive data from being accessed by the processors of a data device via usage of the claimed secure element. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the secure element providing increased security, Examiner notes the following: “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.” See MPEP 2106.05(h). Applicant has not claimed to have invented an improved type of secure element. The usage of a secure element for its ordinary benefits of increased security during sensitive operations does not alter or affect how the process steps of completing a transaction with adding a tip amount is performed. Said secure element does not integrate the noted judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims are not drafted in such a way as to monopolize any potential judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption"). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that "patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, the attempt to limit the breadth of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9855, 17-18 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
Step 2B
Applicant argues their claims are similar to those in DDR Holdings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR Holdings the case was eligible due to the unique problem introduced by integration of the abstract idea into the realm of computer implementation. The instant application has no such problem being created by implementation of the abstract idea onto a computer system and thus are mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. For example, in a traditional formal sit-down restaurant, a server may, at the end of a customer’s meal, communicate transaction information via an invoice or bill, walk away to serve other tables, and return to collect payment including communication of an added tip, and then further record payment of the transaction in a restaurant ledger. Such methods have existed long before the invention of the computer. Applicant’s claims do not present the same issue present in DDR.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those in Finjan. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claimed invention involves a method of virus scanning that scans an application program, generates a security profile identifying any potentially suspicious code in the program, and links the security profile to the application program. The claims were held patent eligible because the court concluded that the claimed method recites specific steps that accomplish a result that realizes an improvement in computer functionality. In particular, the method generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code." This is an improvement over traditional virus scanning, which only recognized the presence of previously-identified viruses. The method also enables more flexible virus filtering and greater user customization. The instant claim sets do not involve virus scanning and do not recite more than mere implementation of an abstract idea onto a computer such that the claim set does not recite specific steps that accomplish a result that realizes an improvement in computer functionality. The case of Finjan does not apply.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those Enfish. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement-a particular database technique-in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. In Enfish v. Microsoft, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision… that “the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory” which is “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” See also details in re TLI Communication LLC. In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in Enfish,. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. The case of Enfish does not apply.
Applicant argues their claims are similar to those in the BASCOM case. In BASCOM, filtering content was seen as an improvement to the technological field of network technology. In that case they focused on how BASCOM improved the filtering technology in an unconventional manner. Applicant does not improve the functioning of a computer or transmission of data. Applicant is merely applying a commonplace business method on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §2106.05(a)(II)(i). Merely selecting a type of data to use or associate with does not constitute an integration into a practical application. The case of BASCOM does not apply to the applicant’s claims.
Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to identify any evidence at Step 2B of the Alice analysis of a conventional nature of the ordered combination of the additional claim elements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, Examiner notes: In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality. With respect to any evidentiary matter: “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B and no need for any additional evidence beyond those provided for the elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 recites “memory to store a transfer value;”. The phrase “…to store a transfer value” represents an intended use or function of the memory and may be afforded no patentable weight.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, non-transitory computer-readable media, and device for user input during an electronic data transfer. These are a process, article of manufacture, and machine which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are found in claim(s) 1, 11 and 17:
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 17:
“detecting,…, an initiation of a data transfer with a data originating device based at least in part on a first time that the data originating device has entered a proximity of the data receiving device;”
“providing,…, an indication that the data receiving device supports a double tap data transfer;”
“determining, …, that the data originating device supports the double tap data transfer;”
“establishing,…, a communication channel between the data receiving device and the data originating device, the communication channel being established based at least in part on the data originating device having entered the proximity of the data receiving device a second time, operations performed via the communication channel being performed via the one or more processors of the data receiving device;
“determining, …, a tip amount for the transaction based at least in part on an indication of the tip amount received from the data originating device in a response message during a second time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device, wherein the indication of the tip amount is associated with the transaction identifier;”
“initiating,…, a payment loop for exchanging information…”
“completing,…, the transaction with the transfer value…, the transfer value based at least in part on the tip amount.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a data receiving device”, “to the data originating device”, “One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions stored thereof, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a data receiving device to:”, “memory to store a transfer value;” or “one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes marketing or sales activities or behaviors or could reasonably encompass agreements in the form of contracts. A marketing or sales activity is described when determining if a transaction can be performed and performing said transaction. An agreement in the form of a contract is described when determining if a transaction can be performed and performing said transaction. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, 12-14, 18-19, 21 and 23-25 are directed to the following:
Claim(s) 2, 12 and 18:
“…wherein the data receiving device is to provide the indication that the data receiving device supports the double tap data transfer based at least in part on the detection that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device.”
Claim(s) 3, 13 and 19:
“…wherein the data receiving device completes the transaction based at least in part on the data originating device having entered the proximity of the data receiving device the second time.”
Claim(s) 4 and 14:
“…wherein the data receiving device is functioning as a point of sale (POS) device,…”
Claim(s) 8:
“…wherein the indication that the data receiving device supports the double tap data transfer indicates that the data receiving device supports receipt of the indication of the tip amount by the data receiving device during the second time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device,…”
“…wherein the method further comprises identifying an indication that the data originating device supports transmission of the indication of the tip amount by the data originating device during the second time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device.”
Claim(s) 9:
“providing,…, preliminary receipt data during the first time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device, the preliminary receipt data for display on the data originating device.”
Claim(s) 10:
“…wherein the preliminary receipt data includes a preliminary receipt value,…”
“…wherein the transfer value is determined to be the preliminary receipt value plus the tip amount.”
Claim(s) 21:
“identifying,…, the transaction identifier in a message received from the data originating device during the second time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device;”
“determining,…, that the tip amount corresponds to the transaction based at least in part on identifying the transaction identifier in the message received from the data originating device during the second time.”
Claim(s) 23:
“identify a transaction identifier in the response message;”
“determine that the tip amount corresponds to the transaction based at least in part on the transaction identifier being identified in the response message.”
Claim(s) 24:
“…wherein the response message is a first response message…”
“identifying a second response message received during the first time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device, the second response message including a command frame with tag indicating an application to be utilized for the transaction.”
originating device…”
Claim(s) 25:
“identifying a second response message received during the first time that the data originating device has entered the proximity of the data receiving device, the second response message including a command frame with tag indicating mobile capabilities of the data originating device.”
Claim(s) 25:
“…wherein the response message is a first response message…”
These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a judicial exception. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following and/or similar additional elements:
Claim 1:
“…by one or more processors of a data receiving device…”
“performing, by the data receiving device, a reset operation based at least in part on the response message, the reset operation resulting in a context switch from the one or more processors to a secure element of the data receiving device, wherein the operations performed via the communication channel after the reset operation are performed via the secure element, and wherein the secure element implements a security level that protects sensitive data for an account associated with the data receiving device and prevents the sensitive data from being shared with the one or more processors of the data receiving device; and”
“…by the secure element of the data receiving device…with the data originating device;”
“establishing, by the secure element of the data receiving device, a secure connection with a service provider server;”
“…by the secure element of the data receiving device…via the secure connection with the service provider server…”
Claim 11:
“One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions stored thereof, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a data receiving device to:”
“…by one or more processors of the data receiving device…,
“…to the data originating device…”
“perform a reset operation based at least in part on the response message, the reset operation resulting in a context switch from the one or more processors to a secure element of the data receiving device, wherein the operations performed via the communication channel after the reset operation are performed via the secure element, and wherein the secure element implements a security level that protects sensitive data for an account associated with the data receiving device and prevents the sensitive data from being shared with the one or more processors of the data receiving device; and”
“…by the secure element of the data receiving device…with the data originating device;”
“establishing, by the secure element of the data receiving device, a secure connection with a service provider server;”
“…by the secure element of the data receiving device…via the secure connection with the service provider server…”
Claim 17:
“A data receiving device…”
“memory to store a transfer value;”
“one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors to:”
“…to the data originating device…”
“perform a reset operation based at least in part on the response message, the reset operation resulting in a context switch from the one or more processors to a secure element of the data receiving device, wherein the operations performed via the communication channel after the reset operation are performed via the secure element, and wherein the secure element implements a security level that protects sensitive data for an account associated with the data receiving device and prevents the sensitive data from being shared with the one or more processors of the data receiving device; and”
“the secure element instructed to:”
“…with the data originating device;”
“establish a secure connection with a service provider server;”
The computer components or other machinery (data receiving device, data originating device, non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, and memory) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic devices, generic non-transitory computer-readable media, generic processors and generic memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The establishing a secure connection step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally establishing a secure connection) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of a secure element is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP 106.05(h).)
Dependent claim(s) 4-5 and 14 contain the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 4 and 14:
“…and wherein the data originating device is functioning as a near field communication (NFC) payment device.”
Claim(s) 5:
“…wherein the data receiving device comprises essentially a same operating system as the data originating device.”
The computer components or other machinery (operating system) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic operating system) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The use of NFC is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP 106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The memory and non-transitory computer-readable media above is/are not structurally described in further detail within the applicant’s specification. Therefore examiner must interpret these elements as generic computer components.
The data receiving and data originating devices mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0282] of the specification). The component is described as:
“In some embodiments, the data receiving device 2410 and the data originating device 2402 may comprise essentially the same hardware components. For example, the data receiving device 2410 and the data originating device 2402 may have the same type of core components (such as each having one or more processors, one or more memory devices, one or more wireless communication components, and a display), whereas the peripheral components may differ between the data receiving device 2410 and the data originating device 2402.”.
The operating systems mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0282] of the specification). The component is described as:
“In some embodiments, the data receiving device 2410 may comprise essentially a same operating system as the data originating device 2402. For example, the data receiving device 2410 and the data originating device 2402 may both implement a mobile device operating system.”
Therefore applicant’s own specification supports these components as generic computer components.
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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The additional element(s) identified in the claims from Step 2A Prong Two are:
Claim 1:
“…by one or more processors of a data receiving device…”
“performing, by the data receiving device, a reset operation based at least in part on the response message, the reset operation resulting in a context switch from the one or more processors to a secure element of the data receiving device, wherein the operations performed via the communication channel after the reset operation are performed via the secure element, and wherein the secure element implements a security level that protects sensitive data for an account associated with the data receiving device and prevents the sensitive data from being shared with the one or more processors of the data receiving device; and”
Claim 11:
“One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions stored thereof, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a data receiving device to:”
“…by one or more processors of the data receiving device…,
“…to the data originating device…”
“perform a reset operation based at least in part on the response message, the reset operation resulting in a context switch from the one or more processors to a secure element of the data receiving device, wherein the operations performed via the communication channel after the reset operation are performed via the secure element, and wherein the secure element implements a security level that protects sensitive data for an account associated with the data receiving device and prevents the sensitive data from being shared with the one or more processors of the data receiving device; and”
Claim 17:
“A data receiving device…”
“memory to store a transfer value;”
“one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors to:”
“…to the data originating device…”
“perform a reset operation based at least in part on the response message, the reset operation resulting in a context switch from the one or more processors to a secure element of the data receiving device, wherein the operations performed via the communication channel after the reset operation are performed via the secure element, and wherein the secure element implements a security level that protects sensitive data for an account associated with the data receiving device and prevents the sensitive data from being shared with the one or more processors of the data receiving device; and”
“the secure element instructed to:”
Claim(s) 4 and 14:
“…and wherein the data originating device is functioning as a near field communication (NFC) payment device.”
Claim(s) 5:
“…wherein the data receiving device comprises essentially a same operating system as the data originating device.”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).
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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
⦁ (for establishing a secure connection) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smets et al. (US 2013/0282459 A1) as the closest prior art of record discloses a double tapping operation based on proximity for performing a transaction with couponing applications. Smets discloses establishment of secure connections.
Jhas et al. (WO 2015/039254 A1) teaches that a merchant POS may be embodied as a mobile device (i.e. it uses a mobile device operating system) and that a user may enter or select a gratuity (i.e. tip) to be applied to a proximity transaction process.
Laserson (US 2020/0242582 A1) teaches capturing a receipt with tip marked on by a customer including transaction identifier, identifying the transaction identifier and total, and applying the tip amount to the corresponding transaction (i.e. determining tip corresponds to the transaction based in part on identifying the transaction number.
Fontaine et al. (US 2018/0144334 A1) teaches that a merchant POS may be configured to perform a payment control application stored elsewhere in memory and provide instructions to control a secure element stored on the merchant device to initiate and complete a financial transaction controlled through a secure element based on payment information received through NFC (i.e. context switching based on received transaction messages through proximity).
Smets et al. (EP 3,276,557 A1) discloses tapping based transactions including multiple taps for a transaction.
Lo (CA 2,853,146 A1) discloses a tapping based transaction using NFC.
Reader (US 2015/0348003 A1) discloses tipping through an NFC payment transaction.
Stegall et al. (US 2022/0038570 A1) discloses identifying adjustments to tips based on table/transaction number.
Smets et al. (US 2013/0097080 A1) discloses multiple tap payment methods for applying coupons.
Georgiev et al. (WO 2018/165724 A1) discloses secure elements of POS modules performing transaction processing.
Nassar et al. (“Method for Secure Credit Card Transaction”) discloses tipping using a mobile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights