DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 12/30/2025 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 18/109858 filed 12/30/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 have been examined with this office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
detect a position of the terminal device using a positioning system – paragraph [0107] reads:
[0107] In the terminal 420U, a store at which a terminal 420U is positioned is recognized from a position detection result obtained by the GPS or the like, and a past settlement history of electronic money, and a settlement card to be used as a payment method of electronic money settlement is selected. The switching of a settlement card will be specifically described with reference to FIG. 17 to be described below. FIG. 17 is a diagram describing automatic switching processing of a settlement card according to the fourth embodiment. FIG. 17 illustrates a schedule of the user U on Friday, and an electronic money payment screen 420U-l of the terminal 420U.
Thus, the “position of the terminal device” is an abstract idea describing information obtained from a “GPS or the like”. The GPS or the like is interpreted as an additional element used to obtain the abstract idea of the position of the terminal device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 7 and any claims which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant introduces new matter to claims 1 and 7. Applicant amended claims 1 and 7 recite the limit "in response to a determination that the store is not identifiable based on the detected position”. There is no support for this negative limitation within the present disclosure. As such, the amended claims as cited adds new matter as claimed and is rejected along with any claims which depend therefrom fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Claim 1 and 7 recite the claim limitation ”determine whether a store at which the terminal device is positioned is identifiable identified based on the detected position”. This should be corrected to read “determine whether a store at which the terminal device is positioned is identifiable based on the detected position” which is used in the remaining claim limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of predictive modeling of cash flow projections without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a device, and independent claim 7 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A terminal device, comprising: a memory storing a first application in which a plurality of settlement cards are registered as a payment method of electronic money, and a second application that performs settlement processing of the electronic money; andprocessing circuitry configured to:store a schedule of a user of the terminal device;
detect a position of the terminal device using a positioning system; determine whether a store at which the terminal device is positioned is identifiable identified based on the detected position: in response to a determination that the store is not identifiable based on the detected position: control output of first voice information for inquiring about the position of the terminal device; receive an input of second voice information indicating the position of the terminal device; and identify the store based on the second voice information response to a determination that the store is identifiable based on the detected position, identify the store based on the detected position; select any one of the plurality of settlement cards as the payment method of the electronic money in the first application in accordance with the identified store and either of (a) a day of a week and a time slot, or (b) a plan registered in the schedule: and execute settlement processing of the electronic money in the second application using the settlement card selected, as the payment method of the electronic money”.
Claim 7 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A settlement method, comprising: storing, in a memory of a terminal device, a first application being an application in which a plurality of settlement cards are registered as a payment method of electronic money.and a second application that performs settlement processing of the electronic money:storing a schedule of a user of the terminal device; detecting a position of the terminal device using a positioning system: determining whether a store at which the terminal device is positioned is identifiable identified based on the detected position; in response toa determination that the store is not identifiable based undetected position: outputting of first voice information for inquiring about the position of the terminal device; receiving an input of second voice information indicating the position of the terminal device; andidentifying the store based on the second voice information; in response to a determination that the store is identifiable based on the detected position, identifying the store based on the detected position; selecting any one of the plurality of settlement cards as the payment method of the electronic money in the first application in accordance with the identified store and either of (a) a day of a week and a time slot, or (b) a plan registered in the schedule; and executing settlement processing of the electronic money in the second application using the settlement card selected at the selecting, as the pavement method of the electronic money”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Predictive modeling of cash flow projections is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a terminal device; an application; processing circuitry; electronic; outputting of first voice; receiving an input of second voice; a positioning system. However, the specification description of the additional elements a terminal device ([Figure 1, element 20U] [0040]); an application ([0040] [0126]); processing circuitry ([0036-0037] [0052]); electronic (software/hardware [0036-0037] [0052]); outputting of first voice ([0087] [0097]); receiving an input of second voice ([0087] [0097]); a positioning system ([0040] [0072] [0107] “…GPS or the like …”); are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 6, and 8 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 3, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to detect a position of the terminal device (claim 3) ([0040] “…the terminal may include a function of identifying a current position using a positioning system such as a global positioning system (GPS), and outputting position information indicating the identified position” [0073] “…The position detection unit 2231 detects the position of the terminal 220U using a positioning system such as the GPS, and outputs position information indicating the identified position…”);
are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Specifically, the claim limits “control output of first voice information tor inquiring about a position of the terminal device, receive an input of second voice information indicating the position of the terminal device;” require inquiring about a position of the terminal device. Many voice-activated purchasing, or voice commerce system are known in the art such as Amazon's Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple's Siri, and Yamada (US Patent No. 10152976) (see Conclusion section of this office action). However, the abstract idea concerning output/input of specific information is not found in the prior art. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to patent eligibility have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (Sept. 26, 2025), which made and improvement to an underlying technology, does not change the framework for determining patent eligibility. The claimed invention merely apply a technological environment (computer, smart phone, GPS, …) to the abstract idea of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are unlike the cited inventions of Desjardins, Enfish, DDR, McRo, and Core Wireless which described a technical solution to a problem. As such, the examiner maintains the rejection. As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited items A submitted 09/04/2025 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 09/04/2025.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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 on 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
01/22/2026