DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to RCE filed 10/30/2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
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 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method; claims 10-19 are directed to system; claim 20 is directed to a non-statutory computer-readable medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claim 1, 10 and 20 are directed to – obtaining payment code from offline terminal; identifying transaction information; sending collection information containing payment information and payment account to server; sending payment information to payment server; matching collection information with payment information; and transferring transaction amount from payment account to collection account – that describes Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Encoding transaction information does not change the abstract nature of the claims. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – time corresponding to obtaining payment code, transaction order identifier, identifying payment based on code, generating payment success information – that also constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a payee terminal device; a payer terminal device; a payment server; transmitting optical signal; sending information to server; encoding transaction information. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Generating an optical signal by encoding one of the following items: (1) quantity of light emission times; (2) a light emission frequency; or (3) illumination, color, and duration of each time of light emission of the target optical signal – is a variation of amplitude modulation, frequency modulation, or phase modulation – all of which are core methods of optical modulation. See NPL Principles of Photonics.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The 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 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described “the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’” 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Here, Examiner finds that the limitations – enabling, obtaining, generating, determining, collect, match – have been recited in a result-oriented manner lacking in details on how the “enabling a collection function,” “obtaining a payment code,” …. determining that a payee’s terminal is back online,” “collect the target optical signal and identify the transaction information,” and “match the collection information with the payment information” – which, therefore, is essentially equivalent to “apply it.” All purported inventive concepts reside in how the ‘enabling,’ ‘obtaining,’ determining,’ ‘collect,’ ‘identify,’ ‘match,’ are technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically achieves the result which the specification does not elaborate. See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – obtaining payment code from offline terminal; identifying transaction information; sending collection information containing payment information and payment account to server; sending payment information to payment server; matching collection information with payment information; and transferring transaction amount from payment account to collection account – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – obtaining payment code from offline terminal; identifying transaction information; sending collection information containing payment information and payment account to server; sending payment information to payment server; matching collection information with payment information; and transferring transaction amount from payment account to collection account – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that the claims integrate this into a practical application via a specific technological solution for secure, real-time offline payment. The claims recite generating and transmitting an encoded target optical signal (e.g., infrared) within a predetermined range to synchronously share transaction information (e.g., amount, account) from an offline payee terminal to a payer terminal, enabling bidirectional server verification upon reconnection. These claim features address technical problems in prior offline systems (e.g., delayed verification, privacy risks in bus/subway payments; Spec. [0003] - [0004]) by using optical encoding (e.g., based on light emission times/frequency/illumination; Spec. [0050], [0072] - [0074]) for real-time transmission without networks or user data leakage (Spec. [0097]).
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because the limitation – generating an optical signal by encoding one of the following items: (1) quantity of light emission times; (2) a light emission frequency; or (3) illumination, color, and duration of each time of light emission of the target optical signal – is merely an additional element that is used in the process of collecting payment. This is a variation of amplitude modulation, frequency modulation, or phase modulation – all of which are core methods of optical modulation. See NPL Principles of Photonics. The above limitation merely generates the optical signal by using an encoding rule (also disclosed in para [0110], [0021], [0072]). It is not clear what generating an optical signal by encoding light emission times, frequency, duration, etc., has to do with improving computers or technology since the principles of amplitude and frequency modulation have been known for nearly a century. Examiner also points out that without further details, encoding transaction information is an abstract idea. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
Enabling a payment transaction to be completed when a payee terminal is in an offline state does not constitute an improvement to computer functionality but instead it is merely an improvement to commerce. The purported advantages mentioned in para [0024] such as no hardware upgrade, cost reduction, higher penetration rate, etc. – are commercial advantages as opposed to technological. As regards not collecting user information, this too represents commercial and/or legal compliance in relation to customer privacy regulations and not technological. At most the encoding rules serve to facilitate transmission of optical signal from one terminal to another but this is mere signal processing as opposed to technical improvement.
Applicant argues that this is a technological improvement rooted in computer networks/payment systems, analogous to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims improved database efficiency) or Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improved user interfaces). Unlike Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cited in Office Action, pp. 9-10), where claims merely arranged information without technical improvement, here, the encoded optical signal enables secure offline synchronization, reducing costs/privacy risks (Spec. [0024]).
Examiner finds this unpersuasive.
Unlike Enfish, that created a new self-referential table to enable faster searching, the claimed invention does not describe any comparable new data structure that leads to performance improvement. Unlike Core Wireless, that was able to render only a limited list of selectable functions on a small screen when the application is in an un-launched state, the claimed invention does not describe any comparable technical improvement such as tailoring information for a particular presentation screen. Applicant also fails to explain why and how encoding optical signature leads to secure offline synchronization, reduced cost/privacy risk, etc.
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
Consideration of improvements is relevant to the integration analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining that the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the trader but did not improve computers or technology.
See Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”) (“The claims of the ‘999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly.”); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. Apr 30, 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26–39, not on improving computers or technology.”).
Similarly, here any purported improvement in the claimed invention is to facilitate a transaction even when a payee terminal is an offline state by transmitting an encoded optical signal containing transaction information, within a predetermined range. As in Trading Technologies, the claims recite a new arrangement of information in the form of an optical signal containing transaction information that assists payer and the payee (merchant) complete a transaction. The claims facilitate commerce by enabling a transaction but they do not involve computer or technology.
The combination of the claimed steps does not bring about (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited combination of abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692