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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s response filed on March 2, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 21-26 have been examined in this application. Claims 4, 16-20 are cancelled.
No new information disclosure statement has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, pages 8-17, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims capture patent eligible subject matter and cites Memos from August and December of 2025, and case law directed to DDR Holdings. Applicant produces 3 version of claim 1, wherein the first featured a highlighted “carved-out pieces of the claim highlighted in bold text,” the second shows “the Office Action’s ‘additional elements’ bolded along with the bolded features from the Office Action,” the third features “unaddressed claim language highlighted in bold capital letters;” id., 8-10. Based on the reproduced claims, Applicant argues that “the Office Action fails to… analyze the claim as a whole… fails to consider the extent to which the claim covers a particular way to achieve a desired outcome… and oversimplifies the claim limitations and expands the application of the ‘apply it’ consideration;” id. 10.
Applicant then elaborates on each of the above claimed Office Action failures when analyzing the claims for patent eligibility. With regard to the first reason, Applicant argues that the claims lack the combination of the judicial exception and additional elements per August 4, 2025 Memo, thus ignoring “substantially all of the claim language that describes how the Office action’s ‘additional elements’ interact with, and impact, each other and the features of the claim that are identified by the Office Action as the abstract idea.” Id., 11.
Regarding the second reason, Applicant cites the same Memo from August and argues the “improvement consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers… a particular way to achieve a desired outcome;” Id. Applicant argues that the claims provide a particular way of achieving a desired outcome by “obtaining a network identifier and a merchant identifier that identifies a merchant from among multiple merchants, with the same application at the same electronic device that performed an electronic transaction with a point of service for the merchant, from a system at a network address corresponding to the network identifier and the merchant, and displaying the order information in the user interface of that same wallet application at that same electronic device without user interaction by controlling a display of that same electronic device.” Wherein claim 1, when considered properly, “it is clear that the Office Action’s alleged additional elements provide improvements in the functioning of a computer;” Id.
Regarding the third reason, Applicant again cites the same August Memo and again states that the Office Action fails to address the “linking/interaction language of claim 1… it is clear that the rejection of… claim 1 improperly relies on multiple oversimplifications of the claim limitations and improperly expands the ‘apply it’ consideration.” Id., 12.
Applicant then focuses on linking the December 5, 2025 Memo to the instant examination of the instant claims, claiming that the claims were not addressed as a whole and are oversimplified by the Examiner, merely providing an unexplained dismissal of additional elements as generic.
Applicant seems to request that the examiner clearly detail an explanation of “why each of the claim features that the Office Action identifies as an ‘additional element’ is not considered by the Examiner to confer a technological improvement to a technical problem.” Id., 14.
Finally, Applicant addresses the so called carved out claimed scope and argues that said carved out scope is not directed to an abstract idea nor is it classifiable under certain methods of organizing human activity or mental process; id., 14-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with all arguments. First, the Examiner notes that because the “MPEP now incorporates the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019 Update), and the Berkheimer Memo, all references to those materials should now be directed to the MPEP.”
Under MPEP §2106, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).
If the claims recite a judicial exception, under section (1), and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, section (2), then the claims are further analyzed to determine whether they:
(3) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP §2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 is analyzed. Claim 1, at a high level, is directed to performing an electronic transaction for an order, receiving, after completion of the transaction, order information, and obtaining order information comprising current status of the order based on network identifier and the merchant, and displaying the current status of the order.
The claim explicitly recites:
A method, comprising:
performing, by an electronic device, an electronic transaction for an order, in part by providing payment information stored in a wallet application at the electronic device to a point of service associated with a merchant, wherein the wallet application is configured to display, in a user interface of the wallet application, order information for multiple merchants including the merchant;
receiving, with the wallet application at the electronic device responsive to a completion of the electronic transaction and without user interaction with the electronic device, order identification information for the order, the order identification information including a network identifier and a merchant identifier that identifies the merchant from among the multiple merchants;
obtaining, by the wallet application of the electronic device without user interaction with the electronic device using the network identifier, from a system at a network address corresponding to the network identifier and the merchant, order information comprising a current status for the order; and
displaying the user interface of the wallet application at the electronic device by controlling a display of the electronic device, the user interface including a user interface element for the order and the merchant, wherein the user interface element includes the current status obtained by the wallet application from the system at the network address corresponding to the network identifier.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the Examiner excluding limitations from the claims, and failing to analyze the claim as a whole are inaccurate and not persuasive. The Examiner explicitly examined the claims as a whole. The Examiner established a clear prima facie case of why the claims are not patent eligible. The chopped-up claim that the Applicant refers to features the claim as a whole minus, as Applicant admits, the additional elements. The Examiner even wrote in the rejections that the claim is written in pertinent part. The rational being that the claim language selected, excluding the additional elements, provides a broad reasonable interpretation of the claim under the BRI standards set forth by the MPEP. Also, and more importantly, the additional elements are not to be analyzed until later. Therefore, the Applicant’s issue is based only on the Examiner’s writing style not on any claim of failing to consider “the extent to which the claim covers a particular way to achieve a desired outcome… and oversimplifies the claim limitations and expands the application of the ‘apply it’ consideration.” The claim, whether reproduced as a whole or in pertinent part still amounts to non-patent eligible subject matter; a judicial exception without significantly more. As it will be later re-demonstrated, the claims fail the clear framework analysis required to analyze the claims for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. In order to emphasize the above and the Examiner’s writing style, the claims are analyzed without the additional elements, Non-Final Filed on December 1, 2025, because the additional elements are to be analyzed under Step-2A, Prong II, which comes after Step-2A, Prong I. Examiner strongly believes that this writing style is more effective in showing clearly what is deemed as an additional element and what is not. Applicant seems to be confusing writing style for application of the law set for to determine whether the claims are patent eligible. In efforts to please the Applicant, the Examiner will include the entire claim in the rejection.
Once the claim(s) is/are determined to be directed to one of four statutory categories, the claims are determined to be directed, under Step-2A, Prong I, to merely an abstract idea of displaying an order status in response to a transaction settlement for an order without significantly more. Therefore, the assumption or claim that the Examiner excluded essential limitations in the claims to amount to the concluded abstract idea is not correct or persuasive. The abstract idea stands even if the entire claim was written as a whole in the rejection. Again, the elements, claimed to be missing/carved out, are explicitly recited as additional elements and analyzed accordingly under Step-2A, Prong II. Before we can jump into Step-2A, Prong II, the claims must first be categorized under one of the three abstract idea groupings. Here the Applicant dives into Memos focusing on Step-2A, Prong II instead of addressing the abstract idea groupings prior to discussing whether the claims amount to a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner will address said Memo arguments prior to actually addressing the abstract idea groupings and then the practical application analysis. Applicant, as noted above, argues that the claims provide a particular way of achieving a desired outcome and that when considered properly, claim 1 and the Office Action’s alleged additional elements provide improvements in the functioning of a computer. Applicant then argues another point from the August Memo, wherein the Examiner is allegedly accused of “improperly [relying] on multiple oversimplifications of the claim limitations and improperly expands the ‘apply it’ consideration.”
The Examiner disagrees, as noted above with regard to establishment of a clear prima facie case, the fact that the claims have to be analyzed properly under each element of the framework set forth, and that there is no simplification or over simplification of the claim because all elements of the claims were analyzed properly as a whole.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the December Memo, the Examiner again respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The Examiner does not agree with the argument of dismissal of additional elements and declaring them generic. All additional elements were addressed clearly and as a whole. More importantly, contrary to Applicant’s arguments no additional elements were left out nor deemed as being over simplified. In fact, the Applicant seems to contradict arguments by first stating that the additional elements noted by the examiner, according to the August Memo, amount to a practical application/improvement of a computer while here the Applicant sates the alternative by alleging the Examiner oversimplified the claims/additional elements, merely providing an unexplained dismissal of additional elements as generic with respect to the December Memo. If in fact the additional elements are deemed generic, such as a general-purpose computer or device, then that statement is true. The claims are devoid of any limitation or claim to a special computer performing special functions. In fact, and as detailed in all previous actions, each and every limitation can be carried out by a general off-the-shelf computer or device. Providing or sending payment information equates to simply sending data, receiving order ID and other information equates to simply receiving data, obtaining from a system order information amounts to receiving data, and displaying order update amounts to displaying data by said off-the-shelf computer/device. Therefore, it’s not an “oversimplification” if the facts point to the abstract idea as merely being applied or “apply it” to implement the abstract idea on a computer or uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are also deemed as simply adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The Memos cited and argued should not serve as a basis of new law or an amendment to the law on how to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101; as the Examiner stated on the phone. Instead, practitioners and Examiners should rely on Memos, like those argued, as a reminder to examine the entirety of the facts of each unique application and its claims to determine whether the claims are patent eligible by following the requirements under MPEP 2106. Examiner now will focus back on the actual analysis and framework to determine whether the claims are patent eligible.
As noted above, under Step-2A, Prong I, the claims amount to merely an abstract idea of displaying an order status in response to a transaction settlement for an order without significantly more
The abstract idea, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, does fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations. In fact, settlement of a transaction and receiving data responsive to the transaction settlement in order to track the transaction is an explicit and clear example of what is deemed as a sales activity and business relation. The relationship between the purchaser and the entity settling the transaction and the seller involved all make up a clear business relationship that is based on certain method of organizing human activity. Likewise, the mere settlement of a transaction as claimed to ultimately track the transaction or the order is a clear sales activity that is also captured under certain methods of organizing human activity.
The abstract idea, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, also falls under mental processes, including concepts performing in the human mind such as judgement, evaluation, observation, and opinion. Applicant attempt to include the limitations “without user interaction with the electronic device” is not persuasive enough to overcome the fact that said abstract idea is characterized under mental processes. Why? Because computers that are generic, off-the-shelf, perform functions without user intervention. Here the claim tries to utilize a device/computer and its components, a wallet application/interface, without user intervention to try and attempt to overcome the mental processes groupings of abstract idea. All the computer or electronic device and its wallet application do is automate the abstract idea that otherwise would be carried out between humans using their brains and performing the claimed scope as a whole with use of a pen and paper. A human can settle a transaction using cash, a human can receive additional information about the seller and other transaction data, a human can also obtain transaction data that includes a status of the order and a human based on the received data, can display using pen and paper an update of the order based on the received data.
Under Step 2B, Prong II, the Examiner finds no additional elements in the claims as a whole that would amount to a practical application; therefore, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments that the claims include the argued additional elements that would amount to a practical application or a solution rooted in technology. The combination of the claim, as captured in pertinent part (argued as a carved-out version of the claim), including the additional elements are analyzed as a whole and deemed not to be directed to a practical application. The additional elements do not result in an improvement in technology, technical field, or device, nor do they, as a whole, amount to a technical solution to a technical problem. Response to arguments and the rejection of the claims as filed in the Non-Final Office Action, December 1, 2025, are incorporated herewith in their entirety.
The additional elements, referring to claim 1 as it is selected for analysis and representative of all other independent claims, include the bolded limitations:
A method, comprising:
performing, by an electronic device, an electronic transaction for an order, in part by providing payment information stored in a wallet application at the electronic device to a point of service associated with a merchant, wherein the wallet application is configured to display, in a user interface of the wallet application, order information for multiple merchants including the merchant;
receiving, with the wallet application at the electronic device responsive to a completion of the electronic transaction and without user interaction with the electronic device, order identification information for the order, the order identification information including a network identifier and a merchant identifier that identifies the merchant from among the multiple merchants;
obtaining, by the wallet application of the electronic device without user interaction with the electronic device using the network identifier, from a system at a network address corresponding to the network identifier and the merchant, order information comprising a current status for the order; and
displaying the user interface of the wallet application at the electronic device by controlling a display of the electronic device, the user interface including a user interface element for the order and the merchant, wherein the user interface element includes the current status obtained by the wallet application from the system at the network address corresponding to the network identifier.
The additional elements are summarized again as: an electronic device, an electronic transaction, a wallet application at the electronic device, a user interface of the wallet application, displaying the user interface of the wallet application at the electronic device by controlling a display of the electronic device, the user interface including a user interface element. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, off-the-shelf computer or device performing generic computer functions such as manipulating data including receiving and sending data, and displaying/outputting a result or outcome. The Applicant didn’t invent the device, the claims fail to capture any other element that is technical about the device besides its general off-the-shelf elements that include a display, memory storing instructions, and a processor, nor do the claims capture any technical solution to a technical problem rooted in computer technology or a technical field that would reduce the abstract idea to a practical application. The application of the abstract idea using a generic computer or device as a tool to perform the abstract idea couldn’t be clearer. Furthermore, the abstract idea not only amounts to mere “apply it” to implement the abstract idea on a computer, but the claims as a whole, including the additional elements, merely add insignificant extra solution activity to the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(g). Likewise, the claims, as a whole and including the additional elements can arguably also be deemed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use such as that of digital payment settlement and tracking of the purchase; MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements are simply used to carry out the abstract idea or in simpler term automate the abstract idea. Therefore, each of the additional elements/limitations when considered as a whole with the rest of all the claims are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination including the entire claim limitations as a whole, the 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.
Finally, with regard to Applicant’s focuses on the argument that the instant claims are similar to those of DDR Holdings and that the Examiner merely states that the claims are not similar to those of DDR Holdings. Applicant seems to cite some portions of the Non-Final Office Action, filed 12/02/2025 but leaves other portions out, such as, the Examiner explicitly noting that the basis of the rejection was not DDR Holdings. Therefore, said arguments are rendered moot. Non-Final Office Action, filed 12/02/2025, page 4. Examiner also notes, that DDR Holdings case was brought up by the Examiner in a previous interview in efforts of directing Applicant to review their specification and determine if they have support for any technical elements that are remotely close to those of the patent eligible DDR Holdings example and if so, to add those elements in the claims. The Examiner was merely trying to provide suggestions to try and explain how Applicant can try and overcome the rejection and to reference said example to understand what is deemed patent eligible. Examiner never admitted that the claims are patent eligible or that the specification holds any elements that would deem it patent eligible or that the claims resemble / align with the case law example discussed. Again, the arguments directed to the cited case law are moot as they do not apply nor are they the basis of the rejection.
Finally, under Step-2B, 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible. The rejection is maintained.
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 1-3, 5-15, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 21-26 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of displaying an order status in response to a transaction settlement for an order without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interaction such as sales activities and business relations. Settlement of a transaction, receiving transaction and other transction related information responsive to the settlement of the transaction, receiving order information based on the received data and displaying a order update clearly highlight the above identified abstract idea grouping and sub-groupings. Furthermore, and BRI, the abstract idea is also characterized under mental processes, including judgement, opinion, evaluation, and performing such concepts using pen and paper. The claims as a whole can be carried out between humans and with the optional use of pen and paper. The additional elements, as will be discussed, merely automate the abstract idea and fail to amount to a practical application.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
performing, by an electronic device, an electronic transaction for an order, in part by providing payment information stored in a wallet application at the electronic device to a point of service associated with a merchant, wherein the wallet application is configured to display, in a user interface of the wallet application, order information for multiple merchants including the merchant;
receiving, with the wallet application at the electronic device responsive to a completion of the electronic transaction and without user interaction with the electronic device, order identification information for the order, the order identification information including a network identifier and a merchant identifier that identifies the merchant from among the multiple merchants;
obtaining, by the wallet application of the electronic device without user interaction with the electronic device using the network identifier, from a system at a network address corresponding to the network identifier and the merchant, order information comprising a current status for the order; and
displaying the user interface of the wallet application at the electronic device by controlling a display of the electronic device, the user interface including a user interface element for the order and the merchant, wherein the user interface element includes the current status obtained by the wallet application from the system at the network address corresponding to the network identifier.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: an electronic device, an electronic transaction, a wallet application at the electronic device, a user interface of the wallet application, displaying the user interface of the wallet application at the electronic device by controlling a display of the electronic device, the user interface including a user interface element. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely utilize the additional elements to carry out the abstract idea; additional elements automate the abstract idea. The abstract idea is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such manipulating data including sending and receiving data, and displaying data / output an outcome. Each of the additional elements/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. The claims as a whole, including the additional elements, merely add insignificant extra solution activity to the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(g). Likewise, the claims, as a whole and including the additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use such as that of digital payment settlement and tracking of the transaction/order; MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims include additional elements such as, encryption and decryption using a public key, cloud storage, and NFC communication. However, these additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality and fail to amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
PGPUB 2020/0160287 to Susaki et al. teaches most of the Applicant’s claimed scope but not in its entirety. Susaki teaches an electronic receipt management server receives and stores a first electronic receipt generated for a transaction made by a customer at a physical store, a customer identifier, and first additional information unique to the physical store. The server receives and stores a second electronic receipt for a transaction made by the customer at an online store, the customer identifier, and second additional information unique to the online store. The server transmits the first and second electronic receipts, the customer identifier, and the first and second additional information, in response to an inquiry containing the customer code. A client device displays a first graphical user interface including a first selectable object to view the receipts/order information.
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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699