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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 12/18/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-4, 7-16, 18, and 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 currently amended.
Claims 2-4 and 18 are previously presented.
Claims 14-16 are original.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 5-6, 17, and 19 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 13-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1 of the eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to fundamental economic practices or certain methods of organizing human activities (see Remarks, pp. 8-9).
The argument is not persuasive. The limitations delineated in the rejection set forth or describe requesting franchisee lists, requesting target store information, and processing a payment. These concepts clearly fall within the fundamental economic practices and commercial/legal interactions subgroupings of the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite limitations drawn to activating the payment app and requesting information based on version information, thereby coping with changing service situations in electronic payment system through version management (see Remarks, pp. 8-9 ).
The argument is not persuasive. These limitations do not preclude the claim from reciting the identified abstract idea. The limitations are additional limitations which are given due consideration under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B of the eligibility framework.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not similar to a concept that was previously identified as an abstract idea by the courts (see Remarks, pp. 8-9).
The argument is not persuasive. To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B of the framework, Applicant argues that the claimed invention reflects a technological improvement and is similar USPTO Example 42 Eligible Claim 1. More specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed combinations allow the user to make an electronic payment by using the vehicle even if a software version installed in the vehicle is different from the version of a server supporting the electronic payment. Applicant argues that in this case, the vehicle is not required to perform immediate software upgrading, while allowing the user to make an electronic payment (see Remarks, pp. 9-11).
The argument is not persuasive. The limitations drawn to version gating are not indicative of a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Instead, the claim merely invokes computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
35 U.S.C. 103
The prior rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, and their dependent claims have been withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
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, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 13-16, 18, and 20 are directed to an apparatus (machine) or method (process), and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent apparatus claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 13. Claim 1 recites the abstract limitations bolded below:
1. An apparatus for an electronic payment, the apparatus comprising:
a display, which is combined with a touch panel, configured to provide a user interface (UI) of a payment app that processes an electronic payment;
a memory storing program instructions; and
one or more processors, when executing the program instructions, configured to:
activate the payment app based on a fact that first version information of the payment app is identical to first version information of a service version stored in a server;
request a franchisee list, with transmitting second version information of the payment app indicating franchisee information, which is available with the payment app, to the server based on a fact that the payment app is activated;
receive the franchisee list matching the second version information of the payment app from the server;
request UI information of a target store selected from the franchisee list to the server;
generate a UI based on the UI information received from the server;
display the franchisee list and the UI through the display; and
process the electronic payment based on the UI displayed on the display, and
request UI information of the target store based on transmitting third version information of the payment app indicating a payment scenario, which is supportable in the payment app, to the server,
wherein the first version information, the second version information, and the third version information are updated separately from each other, and
wherein the second version information is changed when an added franchisee in the server is incapable of providing a service through the payment app of the existing version.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity in that they recite both a fundamental economic practice and commercial interaction. These limitations recite a fundamental economic practice and commercial interaction because they pertain to requesting franchisee lists, requesting target store information, and processing a payment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The display/touch panel, memory, and one or more processors in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 13 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: display combined with a touch panel , memory, one or more processors, payment app, electronic payment
Claim 13: apparatus for electronic payment, payment app, electronic payment
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The additional limitation of the payment app and “electronic” payments also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (electronic payments) and thus fails to provide a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See Applicant’s specification para. [00116]-[00119] about implementation using general purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (electronic payments) and thus fails to provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, no additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional elements 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). In particular, it is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry to transmit version information for compatibility purposes, as evidenced by:
Nelluri (US 10,831,566 B1): To manage the multiple versions of API's, conventional systems typically use versioning, custom headers, accept headers, and the like with which the changes are expected at the calling parties. Conventional systems utilize version numbering, publish the version numbering to their calling parties, and establish handshaking in order to route the incoming API request to the correct version of API.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-4, 14-16, 18, and 20 recite the abstract idea or merely further describe the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 13 and thus correspond to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 2-4, 14-16, 18, and 20 recite additional limitations drawn to requesting/identifying versions and providing a notification of supported features. The disclosure describes this at a high level of generality and does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Thus, even considering this limitation, the use of the computing technology still merely amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4 and 16 recite additional limitations drawn to performing operations in response to an ignition-on signal of the vehicle. The disclosure describes this at a high level of generality and does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Thus, even considering this limitation, the use of the computing technology still merely amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (vehicles) and thus fails to provide a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-4, 13-16, 18, and 20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taine (US 2014/0244708 A1) discloses a method wherein client and server-side instances of an application leverage an application programming interface (API) that complies with a representational state transformation architecture and supports backwards-compatible feature-level version control. A resource maintained by the server-side instance of the application is revised independent of revisions of a remainder of the application. The server-side instance of the application maintains multiple versions of a resource and/or a resource that is a superset of revisions of the resource, such that a compatible version of the resource is served to the client-side instance of the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693