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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025 has been entered.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on September 29, 2025 for Application No. 18/287,364 filed on October 18, 2023, title: “Payment Method And Device Ultra-Wideband Communication”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 were pending. By the 9/29/2025 Response, claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 have been amended, and no claim has been added or cancelled. Claims 5, 6, and 17 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 10/18/2023, is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/005586, filed on 04/19/2022, and claims the priority of Foreign Application KR 10-2021-0050456 filed on 04/19/2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 10/18/2023.
For the purpose of examination, the 04/19/2021 is considered to be the effective filing date.
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, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-4 and 7 recite a method by a first electronic device processing payment using ultra-wide band (UWB) communication; claims 8-11 recite another similar method by a second electronic device processing payment using UWB communication; claims 12-14, 16, and18 recite a first electronic device processing payment using UWB communication; and claims 15 and 19-20 recite a second electronic device processing payment using UWB communication. Therefore, the claims directed to processes and machines which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A method by a first electronic device processing payment using ultra-wide band (UWB) communication, the method comprising:
broadcasting a UWB initiation message including certificate information about the first electronic device;
receiving, from a second electronic device, a UWB response message including at least one of identification information related to the second electronic device and certificate information related to the second electronic device;
determining whether the second electronic device is located in a pay zone based on a result of UWB ranging related to the UWB initiation message and the UWB response message, the pay zone being a predefined region by the first electronic device;
performing UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device, in case that the second electronic device is located in the pay zone; and
transmitting and receiving data for a payment transaction with the second electronic device based on the UWB secure ranging.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a certain method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a first/a second electronic devices, UWB communication). More specifically, the claim recites a safe proximity payment method from a first electronic device to a second electronic device using the UWB communication technology by: broadcasting a UWB initiation message (including certificate information about the first electronic device), receiving a UWB response message from a second electronic device (including identification information and certificate information related to the second electronic device), determining whether the second electronic device is located in a pay zone (based on a result of UWB ranging and a predefined region by the first electronic device), performing UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device (in case the electronic device is located in the pay zone); transmitting and receiving data for a payment transaction with the second electronic device (based on the UWB secure ranging). Therefore, the claim recites a process of providing a safe proximity payment method from the first electronic device using the UWB communication technology to determine that the second electronic device is located in a pay zone based on the received UWB response message before authorizing a payment transaction - this is a fundamental economic practice over the concern of safe transaction or mitigating risk before authorizing a payment transaction (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and is abstract idea.
Claim 8, A method by a second electronic device processing payment using ultra-wide band (UWB) communication, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first electronic device, a UWB initiation message including certificate information of the first electronic device;
transmitting, to the first electronic device, a UWB response message including at least of identification information related to the second electronic device and certificate information related to the second electronic device;
in case that the second electronic device is determined to be located in a pay zone based on a result of UWB ranging related to the UWB initiation message and the UWB response message, performing UWB secure ranging with the first electronic device, the pay zone being a predefined region by the first electronic device; and
performing transmitting and receiving data for a payment transaction with the first electronic device based on the UWB secure ranging.
Claim 8 recites a similar safe proximity payment method using the second electronic device instead of the first electronic device. Thus, claim 8 also recites an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
While claims 1 and 8 are addressed above, the analysis can be applied to claims 12 and 15 where the electronic devices, transceiver, processor, and memory serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Claims 12 and 15 recite the comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 8. Mere nominal recitation of computer components (e.g., a transceiver, processors, a first/second electronic devices, UWB communication) do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, claims 1, 8, 12 and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The claims (1, 8, 12, and 15) recite the additional computer elements, such as a transceiver, processors, a first/second electronic devices, and UWB communication, to perform the broadcasting data, receiving data, determining data, performing data, transmitting data, and receiving data steps. The recited additional elements in all steps are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system, and this is supported in paragraphs 75-101 and Figures 1-3 of the Publication No. 2024/0202700.
The claimed process being performed using the first and second electronic devices using the UWB communication via the transceiver and processors limits the idea to a particular technical environment. The claimed process, such as using the first electronic device to broadcast a UWB initiation message, receive a UWB response message, determine the second electronic device is located in a pay zone, perform the UWB secure ranging, transmitting and receiving data for a payment transaction using the UWB communication technology, narrows the abstract idea to a particular type of relationship, but it does not make the idea less abstract. The claimed invention is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device (e.g., electronic devices) and an existing technology (e.g., UWB communication). The mere nominal recitation of generic devices (e.g., electronic devices) and an existing technology (e.g., UWB communication) do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of an electronic device, transceiver, processor, and database. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 of using a computer to perform the broadcasting, receiving, determining, performing, transmitting, and receiving functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 depend on claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 therefore include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 12, and 15. Therefore, the dependent claims also recite the same abstract idea of a safe proximity payment method using the electronic devices and the UWB communication technology.
Claims 2 and 13 recite additional elements “further comprising: determining priority for the at least one second electronic device based on the UWB response message, wherein performing the UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device comprises performing the UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device having a highest priority using first identification information about a payment application of the second electronic device having the highest priority.” (Additional detailed instructions for determining priorities for the second electronic device based on the UWB response message. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 3 and 14 recite additional elements “wherein the performing of the secure ranging comprises includes: broadcasting a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) advertising packet including the identification information related to the second electronic device; and receiving, from the second electronic device, a request for a BLE connection based on the identification information.” (Additional detailed instructions for broadcasting a Bluetooth advertising packet and receiving a request for BLE connection. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4 and 16 recite additional elements “wherein the performing of the secure ranging further comprises: establishing a secure channel with the second electronic device based on the request for the BLE connection; exchanging a UWB parameter including a UWB ranging session key with the second electronic device through the secure channel; obtaining a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) from the UWB ranging session key; and performing the UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device using the STS.” (Additional detailed instructions for establishing a secure channel, exchanging a UWB parameter with the second electronic device, obtaining a scrambled time stamp sequence and performing the secure ranging. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7 and 18 recite additional elements “wherein the identification information includes a universally unique identifier (UUID) allocated to a payment application or a UUID allocated to the payment application and signed.” (Additional detailed instructions for the identification information is a UUID. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 9 and 19 recite additional elements “further comprising: receiving, from the first electronic device, a Bluetooth (BLE) advertising packet including the identification information; and transmitting, to the first electronic device, a request for a BLE connection.” (Additional detailed instructions for receiving a Bluetooth advertising packet and transmitting a request for a BLE connection. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 10-11 and 20 recite additional elements “wherein the identification information includes a universally unique identifier (UUID) allocated to the payment application or a UUID allocated to a payment application and signed.” and “wherein the signed UUID is signed by the payment application or a higher entity of the payment application.” (Additional detailed instructions for the identification information is a UUID and allocated and signed. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims add no additional elements that make the claimed invention patent-eligible and only serve to further narrow the abstract idea. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include any additional elements other than those of claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on providing a safe proximity payment method using the electronic devices and the UWB communication technology to secure safe proximity before making a payment transaction. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a computer network, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed toward a fundamental economic principle, specifically mitigating risk and the Examiner does not explain why the claims could be seen as mitigating risk. Applicant argues that the claims are very clearly directed toward online payment processing which does not involve mitigating risk. Applicant argues that the claimed invention “provides a proximity payment method for addressing the connection delay issue that occurs when performing UWB secure ranging using out-of-band (OOB) communication and a UWB message”. Thus, the claimed invention is clearly directed toward addressing a particular problem that arises in a specific context of payment processing.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. When determining whether a claim amounts to an abstract idea, the courts always breakdown the claim into the essential scope of the claim. In doing so, the courts do not recite specific details of what is recited in the claim(s) but focus on determining the overall abstract idea encompassed by the claim(s) as a whole.
In the present case, the amended claim 1 recites a process of providing a safe proximity payment method from the first electronic device using the UWB communication technology to determine that the second electronic device is located in a pay zone based on the received UWB response message before authorizing a payment transaction. This is a fundamental economic practice over the concern of safe transaction or mitigating risk before authorizing a payment transaction (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and is abstract idea.
Claim 1, A method by a first electronic device processing payment using ultra-wide band (UWB) communication, the method comprising:
(1) broadcasting a UWB initiation message including certificate information about the first electronic device;
(2) receiving, from a second electronic device, a UWB response message including at least one of identification information related to the second electronic device and certificate information related to the second electronic device;
(3) determining whether the second electronic device is located in a pay zone based on a result of UWB ranging related to the UWB initiation message and the UWB response message, the pay zone being a predefined region by the first electronic device;
(4) performing UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device, in case that the second electronic device is located in the pay zone; and
(5) transmitting and receiving data for a payment transaction with the second electronic device based on the UWB secure ranging.
The claim essentially recites five steps to provide a safe proximity payment method, steps 1-2 are the pre-solution activities to check if the second electronic device responds to the broadcasted UWB initiation message, steps 3-4 are to determine whether the second electronic device is located in located in the pay zone by performing the UWB secure ranging with the second electronic device, and step 5 is the post solution activity for making a payment transaction with the second electronic device based on the UWB secure ranging. Thus, the claim recites a safe proximity payment method using the electronic devices and the UWB communication technology to secure safe proximity before making a payment transaction. This is the concern of safe transaction or mitigating risk before authorizing a payment transaction and is abstract idea.
The focus of the claims is on providing a safe proximity payment method using the UWB communication technology to secure safe proximity before making a payment transaction. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses the existing technology as tools (in this case, the UWB communication technology). When viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible and the rejection of the claims is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
An updated prior art search did not identify any art(s), individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element and limitation of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695