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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 7, 15-17 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted on page 9 that “the claim further requires that the QR code is encrypted, is generated by a secure token key (“STK”) specific to desktop device, and includes a one-time use token and a timestamp for setting an expiration period for the merchant session. These are concrete technical security controls”. However, the use of an “STK” has been prevalent in commercial world. The added feature does not improve the technological function, but has been introduced, instead, to provide a secured transaction. Additionally, the claim “requires that the QR code include a universal URL configured to launch a corresponding bank application, where the universal URL uses deep linking and redirects to a fallback webpage . . .”. The provision of a universal URL embedded in a QR code is standard for the technology. It provides a convenient way to view a link, and thus, does not add much to a technological improvement.
Considering the amended limitations under Step 2A Prong Two, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. They are 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) (Step 2A Prong Two analysis). Similarly, the limitations are not indicative of inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. Specifically, the applicant amended the independent claims and asserted “Sharma’s code is generated in connection with a POS terminal and includes a dynamic token tied to certificate or public/private key validation between the customer device and the POS terminal. That is not an STK embedded in a merchant website . . .” & “Pitz likewise does not cure the deficiencies. Pitz is directed to real-time fraud decisioning, such as intercepting fraud- engine declines . . .and user responses in fraud analysis.”
Pitz discloses: A computer-implemented method for real-time fraudulent activity verification, comprising: displaying, on a user device, a first notification which prompts entry of a user-selected geographic area, the user-selected geographic area defining a valid region for processing of transactions associated with a user; receiving, by the user device, user-defined geographic data, the user-defined geographic data specifying at least one user-selected geographic area and defining the valid region for processing of transactions; transmitting, by the user device, the user-defined geographic data along with user data, the user data identifying the user device or the user; receiving, the user device, a second notification, the second notification being an authentication request message received in response to a proposed transaction associated with a user identifier related to the user; displaying, by the user device, the second notification; receiving, by the user device, user-provided authentication data; and transmitting, by the user device, the user-provided authentication data.
Sharma teaches: Embodiments provide a method for facilitating a payment transaction at a POS terminal. The method includes receiving, by a server system associated with a payment network, a machine-readable code comprising information corresponding to a merchant and a dynamic token. The machine-readable code is valid for only a pre-defined interval. The method includes sending, by the server system, a notification associated with the machine-readable code received from the customer device, to a merchant device for approval of the payment transaction. The method further includes receiving, by the server system, a merchant defined transaction code from the merchant device in response to receipt of the notification at the merchant device. The merchant defined transaction code indicates a nature of the payment transaction. facilitating, by the server system, the payment transaction upon receipt of the merchant defined transaction code from the merchant device.
VAN OS teaches: user interfaces for managing peer-to-peer transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for initiating and managing transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces corresponding to completed transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for providing visually distinguishable message object appearances based on message designation. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for activating accounts for accepting and sending transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for exchanging accounts for use in a transfer. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for splitting transfers between two or more accounts. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for generating and displaying a transfers history list. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for voice-activation of transfers. In some examples, a device provides visual or haptic feedback corresponding to a transfer operation.
JOAO teaches: An communication apparatus, including a memory which stores information regarding a first account of an individual account holder, a barcode, or QR code, reader which reads or obtains information regarding a merchant involved in a transaction involving the first account, wherein the merchant information is input into the apparatus; a camera which obtains a picture or photograph of a party involved in the transaction; a processor which generates an authorization request containing information read or obtained by the barcode, or QR code, reader and information regarding the first account, wherein the processor or the apparatus initiates and establishes a communication link with a transaction authorization computer associated with an issuer or servicer of the first; and a transmitter which transmits the authorization request message and the picture or photograph to the transaction authorization computer after the communication link is established. The apparatus is associated with the individual account holder.
None of the cited references, either individually or in combination, does not teach nor disclose the amended limitations. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 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. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 10, 20 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, a method for transmitting information, using a desktop device having an electronic display, to a merchant, wherein the information identifies the desktop device; receiving, at the desktop device, a quick response (QR) code from the merchant, wherein the QR code: is generated based on the information; is encrypted; is generated by a secure token key (STK) specific to the desktop device; and includes a one-time use token, and a timestamp for setting an expiration period for a session with the merchant; scanning, by user device application comprising instructions for execution on a user device comprising a processor and a memory, the QR code from an electronic display, wherein the QR code includes a universal URL configured to launch a corresponding bank application on the user device and the universal URL uses deep linking and redirects to a fallback webpage when the corresponding bank application is not installed; receiving, by the user device application, an authentication request from the server; transmitting, by the user device application, an authentication credential to the server; transmitting, by user device application, the one-time use token to a server; receiving, by the user device application from the server, a list of one or more transaction accounts associated with one or more account providers associated with the user; and transmitting, by the user device application to the server, a selection of one transaction account, wherein the selection triggers the server to transmit one transaction account information to a merchant, and wherein the transaction account information is sufficient to complete a transaction within the expiration period for the session set by the timestamp; and wherein the server transmits a virtual card number (VCN) to the merchant; wherein the VCN: has an expiration period, is limited for use only at the merchant, is limited to a geographical region, and is associated with a maximum transaction amount. These limitations are directed to concept of facilitating payment between user device and merchant’s device – sales activities. Hence, it is directed to commercial interactions which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as user device application, user device, a processor, a memory, Quick Response (QR code), an electronic display, a server, account providers, a user, a server, a merchant, data storage unit, a computer readable non-transitory medium, a computer hardware, an URL, recited at a high-level of generality (scanning, receiving, and transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. They are 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 10 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic processing devices that facilitate payment between two parties is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 2 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites authentication credentials.in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (a biometric, a personal identification number, or password) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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).Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites a QR code in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a unique identifier, a user, an email, and a timestamp) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 4 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites storing user’s selection in a storage unit in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a user, a data storage unit) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 5 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites displaying user accounts in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a user device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 6 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites an abstract idea of transmitting payment token in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a payment token, a merchant, a server) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 8 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites transaction account information in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as an account number, expiration date, cardholder’s name) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 9 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites a display in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a desktop computer, an electronic display) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 11 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites launching an application in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a universal resource locator, a user device application, a QR code) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 12 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites performing a risk analysis on transaction history in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a server, user) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 13 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites performing a risk analysis on transaction history to determine fraudulent transaction in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a server) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 14 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites transmitting a second authentication request in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a server, a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 18 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites opening a website in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a website, a server) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 19 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites transmitting account provisioning information in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a merchant, a server, a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights