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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to IN202311035982, filed May 24, 2023. The certified copy has been retrieved in the as of September 24, 2024.
Claims Status
Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 have been cancelled.
Claims 12-13 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11-13 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part in view of the amendment filed 1/16/2026. Where appropriate, certain rejections (e.g., claim 6) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejection of claim 4, Applicant has amendment claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 4 without amendment to the language of claim 4. Although the rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn, the rejection of claim 4 is now applied to claim 1. Additional rejections under 35 USC 112 have been necessitated by the amendment.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 for claiming a judicial exception without significantly more have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant argues that “the skilled person in the art upon reading the claims in view of the specification that at least the following aspects are described:
Generation of distinct order IDs per order at an order processing kiosk;
Automatic generation and display of multiple variable scannable codes, each technically bound to a corresponding order ID;
Simultaneous scanning of different variable scannable codes by different users;
Processor-mediated coordination of concurrent payment sessions, including retrieval of payment status from multiple smart devices and controlled execution of orders based on order-specific payment completion.”
Initially, the Examiner notes the following in regards to the points above:
Generation of distinct order IDs, generation and display of multiple variable scannable codes, scanning different variable scannable codes by different users, and coordinating concurrent payment sessions by retrieving payment status act only to describe the abstract idea. Their link to order processing kiosks, a processor, and smart devices is nothing more than the implementation of those abstract processes on generic computing hardware.
With respect to the scannable codes being “technically bound”, neither the claims nor the specification go beyond a mere association of the scannable codes with the order IDs. The specification is silent with respect to how the codes are generated, displayed, or otherwise “bound” to the order ID. light of the specification, the description of the variable code in the claims as configured to be simultaneously scanned is merely indicative of multiple variable codes (e.g., QR codes) that are displayed simultaneously for respective orders such that they can be scanned by respective users (note Specification: 0005, 0007-0008, Fig. 3).
The Examiner maintains that the claims are clearly directed to managing payment transactions for a plurality of users. The inclusion of the additional elements does not negate this fact, and the broad comparison to Enfish and McRO by Applicant are inapposite. In both Enfish and McRO, the plain focus of the claims was on an improvement to computer functionality itself – not economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. The court in Enfish found that the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate embodied in a "self-referential table" (rather than any form of storing tabular data). This point was underscored by the emphasis the court placed upon Applicant’s disclosure, which described a self-referential table that functioned differently than conventional database structures.
Similarly, the basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were clearly directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters"). As part of the analysis, the court in McRO emphasized the specification, which clearly described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules.
In review of Applicant’s specification, no such technical problem is being addressed. Instead, Applicant’s specification seeks to automate manual reconciliation processes to prevent long queues in establishments such as marketplaces, restaurants or the like (see e.g., 0004, 0026). Applicant’s Remarks further elucidate this point:
“Namely, enabling simultaneous, parallel payment processing for multiple users at a shared kiosk without transaction collision, order mismatch, or payment misattribution.” (p.8).
Here again, the problem being solved is one falling squarely in the commercial realm of payment processing in physical establishments. Both the claims and specification fail to set forth – other than at a high level of generality – any specific technical operations by which the generic computing hardware operates other than utilizing. A recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) was cited by the Examiner to emphasize that instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, was insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. Applicant’s commentary on Interval Licensing - which Applicant notes “lacked technical coordination or control mechanism” - is unpersuasive precisely because the claims at issue also lack “technical coordination”, instead relying expressly on well-understood, routine and conventional operations including at least receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing or retrieving information from memory.
Furthermore, Applicant assertion that the combination of claims is “neither routine nor conventional” is not persuasive. The Examiner emphasizes that, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, the additional elements are evaluated as to whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The individual components – e.g., processor, ordering kiosks, display panels, smart devices – are generic. Moreover, the components themselves operates only to perform receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing or retrieving information from memory, and (in the case of the smart devices) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.
There is nothing of record that indicates that the invention – even considered as an ordered combination – does more than apply the abstract idea using the generic components above, or otherwise provides an unconventional arrangement that results in an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. With respect to Bascom, the elements in combination amounted to significantly more because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provided a technical improvement in the art. More specifically, the combination of additional elements, and specifically “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end‐users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user” where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to “identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account,” were held to be meaningful limitations because they confined the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. The court focused on the specification’s discussion of the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. Neither the claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components like that of Bascom.
Accordingly, and for at least the reasons above, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the accompanying amendments. For further discussion see the section Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11-13 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites wherein the orders are placed by the first user and the second user by scanning each variable scannable code using a respective smart device the orders being received at the order processing kiosk which generates the corresponding order IDs. These features are not supported by the original disclosure because the original disclosure does not describe that orders are placed by scanning the variable codes. To the contrary, the variable codes are used for payment - not placing orders. As originally disclosed, the orders are already placed when the variable code is scanned to effect payment, with a static code disclosed as for use in placing orders (e.g., 0008, 0029-0030).
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Regarding claims 6 and 8 (method) and claim 11 (processor under control of a stored program), claims 6 and 8, and claim 11 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1 and 3 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites wherein the processor that is in communication with the variable scannable code. Although there is antecedent basis for the processor and the variable scannable codes individually, there is no prior recitation of any processor that is in communication with the variable scannable codes. Even presuming arguendo that the reference to the processor is clear, the scope of the claim is rendered unclear because one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how a processor may be “in communicates with” a scannable code. Notably, scanning, reading or otherwise interpretating the scannable code is not tantamount to a processor being in communicating with the scanned code because the processor merely acts to scan the code to interpret its data, rather than communicating with the scannable code in some manner.
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Regarding claims 6 and 8 (method) and claim 11 (processor under control of a stored program), claims 6 and 8, and claim 11 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1 and 3 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Judicial Exception
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, 6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-11, under Step 2A claims 1-11 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a system to manage payments for a plurality of users, the method comprising:
receive a plurality of orders from a first user and a second user from the plurality of users, wherein a plurality of order IDs are generated, wherein a different order ID is assigned to each order that is placed by each user; and
receive order created signals based on the plurality of order IDs,
displays a plurality of variable scannable codes, wherein each of the plurality of variable scannable code is associated with one of the order IDs,
wherein the orders are placed by the first user and the second user by scanning each variable scannable code, the orders being received at the order processing kiosk which generates the corresponding order IDs,
retrieves a payment status regarding successful completion of payment, communicates the payment status, sends a signal for execution of the order based on the order ID
display the variable scannable codes associated with respective order IDs of the first user and the second user,
process payments based on a scan by the first user of a first variable scannable code associated with the first user's order ID and a simultaneous scan by the second user of a second variable scannable code associated with the second user's order ID,
processes each payment that is initiated from both the first and the second user and generates the payment status that indicates a successful or an unsuccessful transaction; and,
wherein the orders are placed by the first user and the second user by scanning each variable scannable code.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ because they set forth or describe managing payment transactions for a plurality of users, which is considered a commercial interaction (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This may also be considered a fundamental economic process because the claim describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a scanning-based system,
at least one processor that operates under control of a stored program comprising a sequence of program instructions to control one or more components,
one or more order processing kiosks,
one or more display panels, and,
a respective smart device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). This is most notable with respect to the use of a display panel and variable scannable codes. Although the variable codes are recited as configured to be simultaneously scanned, neither the claims nor the specification set forth any particular manner of configuring the variable code uniquely such that it is distinct from other variable codes. That is, as understood in light of the specification, the description of the variable code in the claims as configured to be simultaneously scanned is merely indicative of multiple variable codes (e.g., QR codes) that are displayed simultaneously for respective orders such that they can be scanned by respective users (note Specification: 0005, 0007-0008, Fig. 3). Similar logic applies to the display panels, which “refer generally to large sized panels that are capable of displaying multiple codes to a large number of customers at the same time”, and are merely used to display information.
Additionally the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g., receiving orders or order created signals, send a signal, communicating payment status),
storing or retrieving information from memory (e.g., retrieve payment status),
electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (e.g., scanning variable codes)
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. Notably, the Examiner also draws attention to Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which held that instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, was insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 12-13, dependent claims 3 and 12-13 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 3 and 12-13 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 3 and 12-13 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 3 and 12-13 rely on at least similar additional elements as addressed with respect to claim 1. Further additional elements such as a camera and smart device, and a display frame or display panel (claim 3) are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 3 and 12-13 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 3 and 12-13 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 6 and 8 (method) and claim 11 (processor under control of a stored program), claims 6 and 8 and claim 11 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1 and 3 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 6 and 8 and 11 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8 and 11-13 are rejected on other grounds but contain the following subject matter that is allowable over the prior art:
wherein the orders are placed by the first user and the second user by scanning each variable scannable code using a respective smart device, the orders being received at the order processing kiosk which generates the corresponding order IDs,
Machii discloses all of the above including a customer display (i.e., display panel) that displays a plurality of customer order information. More specifically, Machii does disclose that the customer display 5 is a large display device located in the dining room where there are multiple customer tables, and displays order information for multiple customers (see again: 0060, Fig. 7). In other words, Machii discloses a display accessible to a plurality of customers enabling the plurality of customers to simultaneously view the respective order information. Notably, Machii also discloses that a customer may make payment using an order ticket (see: 0058).
As noted in the previous rejection, Machii fails to disclose the use of scannable codes for effecting order placement or payment processing. With respect to payment processing, Yang remedied the deficiency of a variable scannable code to perform payment for a respective order; however, as emphasized above the claims have now been amended to recite that the orders are place responsive to scanning each variable scannable code. Yang does not teach placing an order using a variable scannable code.
Notably, Yang teaches a static code in the form of a product barcode used to enter a shopping cart interface and add products to a shopping cart (see 0024-0025, 0029), which followed by a separate checkout request resulting in generation of a payment code that is pushed to the payment (see 0031, 0034, 0040). The payment code in Yang is the variable code and is only generated after the order has been placed. Further, the claim requires the order to be placed (i.e., submitted for processing) by scanning the variable code. In Yang, the static barcode is scanned to add to cart, but the order is not placed until a checkout process is initiated.
Wong teaches confirmations displayed corresponding to a generated payment status indicative of either a successful transaction or an unsuccessful transaction, and resulting from processing the made payment. Wong discloses a user inputting an order, choosing a specific payment method (e.g., credit card), and submitting the order and payment information. In response, a mobile application displays “Thank you for your order placement. Please save QR code and scan upon arrival at kiosk”. Furthermore, once the QR code is scanned, the kiosk displays “"Your order ### has been processed and payment received” (see: 0030, Fig. 6 (104)). In Wong the QR code is generated post the initial order placement rather than scanned to place the order prior to payment as required by the claim. Moreover, the QR code is scanned from the mobile device by the kiosk rather than by the mobile device from the display panel as required by the claims.
The Examiner further asserts that the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150170126 (Gleeson) discloses an ECR system that receives proposed payment amount and utilizing a pin-pad terminal for entering an electronic product into an electronic shopping cart (see: abstract, 0022, 0175)
PTO form 892-U discloses various point-of-sale self-checkout technology offerings from a plurality of companies, including various scan-based systems (see: 365 Retail Markets, Pyramid Computer GmbH, Up Solution)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights