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 .
This communication is A Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 24, 2025.
Claims 1-14 have been examined in this application. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
No new information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 24, 2025, page 11, regarding claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered. The 112 rejection is withdrawn; however, Examiner notes that claims 7 and 13 are directed to non-functional descriptive material directed to a smart device being utilized as a communication link between the claimed access device and a payment device. The claimed scope is directed solely to the access device and what the access device does. Therefore, any other entity that is claimed is merely deemed non-functional descriptive material, having no patentable weight. Applicant may amend the claims to recite sending or receiving data by the access device, using a smart device, to a payment device to try and clarify the scope of claim s7 and 13.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 24, 2025, page 12-18, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter even if the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant notes that the Examiner “fails to distinctly point out which claim limitations belong to the Mental Process grouping and which claim limitations belong to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Applicant is limited in being able to respond effectively to each grouping. Clarification is respectfully requested;” id., 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not deemed patent eligible as they recite an abstract idea without significantly more. More importantly, the Examiner captured the entire independent claim under the rejection and noted that the claims are directed to both abstract idea categories. Meaning, that the entire claims can be rejected under mental processes, and the entire claims can also be rejected under certain methods of organizing human activity. There was no notion of mixing limitations between the two different abstract idea groupings; wherein some limitations are directed to mental processes and some are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The rejection is pointing out that claims are rejected in view of both abstract idea groupings. Examiner also explained how all claim limitations would be carried out using a human mind and how all claim limitations capture the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping and related sub-groupings.
Applicant argues that the claims do not capture mental processes because the claims do not capture any of the subgroupings under mental processes. Applicant again states it’s not clear which limitations are to be carried out under mental processes.
Examiner disagrees. The claims were rejected as a whole, minus or aside from the removed additional elements; see previous rejection and current. The claimed scope is directed to settlement of a transaction; a concept performed by humans/human minds. A human can use their mind to provide data, including any plurality of data, to another human in order to eventually settle a transaction. Here the claims, in pertinent part, are directed to transmitting from one entity to another a first message including data associated with a transaction. The devices recited and manner of communication are elements later discussed with respect to additional elements. This is why they are removed from the claim, per 101 analysis and later analyzed to determine if they amount to a practical application. Next, the claims recite logging, which is nothing more than storing data, but here the claim is directed to specifically logging, the transaction in a transaction log. The human or the another human (identified above), can store said transaction log (either in their head or on a piece of paper using a pen). Suspending the transaction for a period of time, meaning the human or the another human can decide to pause the transaction for a period of time, which requires judgement, opinion, observation, etc. and further can include the human or the another human to write on a paper that the transaction which is stored in the log is paused. Receiving, a second message including a command to resume the transaction. Again the human or another human can communicate with one another using their head and mouth to advance the transaction or un-pause the transaction. Once un-paused the human or another human can retrieve (in their head/brain) the transaction log or using the paper to read the transaction log that was recorded/stored thereon. The human or another human can then receive a cryptogram. A cryptogram is nothing but data, which can be generated by a human brain or using pen and paper and communicated using verbal means or paper and pen means. The human or the another human can generate AND send a transaction authorization request message including the cryptogram and the data associated with the transaction (basic abstract concept of transaction settlement, wherein for the transaction to be settled transaction data is packed and sent for authorization). Here the limitation can again be carried out using a human mind, or using pen and paper. Finally, as can be clearly apparent now, the human or the another human can receive a transaction authorization response for the transaction initiated in which an authorization or decline of the transaction is determined. The human or another human can determine whether the transaction is to be processed or not based on the cryptogram and transaction data using their human mind (judgment, opinion, evaluation, and observation). The human or the another human can also perform said transaction authorization using pen and paper.
Therefore, the claims are found, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to be directed to an abstract idea of receiving a transaction authorization response based on manipulation of data without significantly more. The abstract idea further classified under the abstract idea grouping of mental processes, which includes observation, evaluation, judgement, or/and opinion. For at least the above reasons, and based on previous rejection, it is clearly detailed why the entirety of the claims also fall under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under Step-2A, Prong II, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application because “they improve the technical implementation of how the resource provider receives transaction information from the consumer, which prevents fraud and theft, for example, by waitstaff.” Applicant further highlights what they believe to be additional elements as recited in the claim; id., 15-17. Applicant also cites Paragraph 0235 and 0072.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims amount to a practical application. The additional elements, are “an access device,” “a smart device,” near field communication technology,” “a processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium,” and “instructions.” These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, amounting to merely an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, storing data, sending data, generating data, analyzing data, and determining an outcome. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Additionally, the additional elements further amount to merely extra solution activity to the judicial exception; MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; MPEP 2106.05(h).
Examiner also notes that the cited portions of the Specification include elements that are not in the claims. Such elements include the threshold time for the transaction to be completed, deletion of data for the transaction at the access device, preventing waitstaff from adding unauthorized tips to the transaction. Even if said elements are added to the claims, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(III), see below, the elements would not amount to a practical application as they are high level failing to amount to a technical solution to a technical problem or field or rooted in computer technology. The Applicant did not invent the devices claimed, NFC communication, or said cryptogram. Instead, these elements are off-the-shelf elements carrying out generic computer functions without amounting to a practical application or significantly more.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) cited recites that the “specification… must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner… the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets for an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Emphasis added.
The MPEP clearly outlines that the specification must include the improvements to the technology and that the claims must recite such improvement. Here the specification provides a problem and a solution to the problem, however, the solution is not rooted in computer technology, improvement to a technical field or technical problem.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument, under Step-2B, the claims do not include additional elements 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Examiner has clearly outlined a prima facie case, the claims are determined to amount to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 24, 2025, page 12-18, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference fails to teach suspending by the access device the transaction for a period of time.
Examiner renders the arguments moot as they do not apply to the newly relied upon reference.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Per claim 1 and 8, the claims recite “wherein the smart device receives the first message via near field communication technology” Claim 1 and 8 are directed to an access device and what the access device does. Therefore, referring to the smart device and what it does is technically outside the scope. Per claim 8 the claim can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite as it directed to a smart device and how it communicates. Rendering the scope to be unclear. Applicant must amend the claims to recite “wherein the access device transmits the first message via near field communication technology” to overcome the issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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.
Per claims 1 and 8, the claims recite “transmitting… a first message… via near field communication technology” and later recite “receiving, by the access device from the smart device, a second message including a command to resume the transaction via near field communication technology.” Emphasis added. It is not clear whether the two NFC technologies claimed are the same or different because the second recited NFC lacks antecedent basis; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second recited NFC could be a different type than the first. Amending the claims to include appropriate antecedent basis for the second limitation would overcome the rejection. All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claims. For instance, claim 3 recites “the near field communication.” It is not clear whether “the” NFC is referring to the first or second NFC in claim 1. Any teaching of a single NFC communication will be deemed as teaching the claims.
Claims 7 and 13 are directed to the smart device and what the smart device does. The smart device is outside the claimed scope, which is directed to an access device only; see claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, the movement as claimed of the smart device cannot be carried out by the smart device alone and would inherently require a user to perform this limitation; which results in the claim being a hybrid claim. For purposes of examination, any teaching of a device in communication with an access device such as a merchant terminal that is proximate the merchant terminal to allow the merchant terminal to receive data from the device will be determined as reading on the claims.
Applicant is advised by the Examiner to cancel the claims to overcome the rejections.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-14 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of receiving a transaction authorization determination in response to manipulation of data without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, including commercial interactions such as sales activities/behaviors, business relations, and concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. The claims amount to an overall transaction settlement with the additional element of using a cryptogram or a code to advance/settle the transaction. Pausing or suspending a transaction and later resuming the transaction based on some code amounts to nothing more than merely manipulating data related to the transaction to cause the transaction to be carried out. The claims clearly capture the above abstract idea concepts. For instance, the claims can be carried out between two humans, using their brain and pen and paper. The cryptogram utilized to settle the transaction can simply be a code a human generates in their mind or using pen and paper. As later will be discussed, the claims fail to include any additional elements that would amount to a practical application, even if the claims capture an abstract idea.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A method comprising:
transmitting… [by a first entity] associated with a resource provider… [to a second entity] associated with the resource provider, a first message including data associated with a transaction, wherein… [the second entity] receives the first message via… [a communication method];
logging… the transaction in a transaction log;
suspending… the transaction;
receiving… a second message including a command to resume the transaction;
retrieving… the transaction from the transaction log;
receiving… a cryptogram;
generating… a transaction authorization request message including the cryptogram and the data associated with the transaction;
transmitting… the transaction authorization request message to an authorizing computer; and
receiving… a transaction authorization response message authorizing or declining the transaction.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “an access device,” “a smart device,” near field communication technology,” “a processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium,” and “instructions.” The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, storing data, sending data, analyzing data, and determining an outcome. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
The claims do not include additional elements 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. For instance, the dependent claims recite additional elements such as using “near field communication.” However, as noted above, such additional elements are recited at a high level and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 merely further describe the abstract idea and fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0311313 to Laracey (Laracey), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0304635 to Cho et al. (Cho).
Per claims 1 and 8, Laracey teaches all of the following claim limitations:
A method comprising: transmitting, by an access device associated with a resource provider to a smart device associated with the resource provider, a first message including data associated with a transaction, wherein the smart device receives the first message via near field communication technology (transaction data is sent to a mobile device, without this data, the token cannot be generated and later used which requires data received from the merchant concerning the transaction) [Abstract, Paragraphs 0014, 00016, and 0033-0035];
logging, by the access device, the transaction in a transaction log (storing the transaction data as a pending transaction or retaining the transaction data in a pending state) [Paragraphs 0033];
receiving, by the access device from the smart device, a second message including a command to resume the transaction… (based on communication from the mobile device/smart device, the merchant device or smart device can now resume the transaction) [Paragraphs 0035-0036];
retrieving, by the access device, the transaction from the transaction log (transaction information is utilized, which is stored and retrieved) [Paragraphs 0030-0031, and 0035];
receiving, by the access device from the smart device, a cryptogram (receiving a cryptogram/token by the merchant device) [Paragraphs 0035-0036];
generating, by the access device, a transaction authorization request message including the cryptogram and the data associated with the transaction (sending a request to authorize the transaction based on the cryptogram/token and transaction data) [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0035-0036];
transmitting, by the access device, the transaction authorization request message to an authorizing computer [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0035-0036]; and
receiving, by the access device from the authorizing computer, a transaction authorization response message authorizing or declining the transaction [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0035-0036].
Laracey does not explicitly disclose:
Laracey does teach settlement of a transaction using devices and wireless technologies, including keeping a transaction in a suspended state while being authorized; as indicated above and at least at Paragraphs 0033-0035. Laracey does not explicitly disclose suspending, by the access device, the transaction for a period of time.
Cho teaches suspending, by the access device, the transaction for a period of time [Abstract, Paragraphs 0014, 0026, 0143-0165 Figures 5-6 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Laracey, which teaches transaction security settlement and use of devices and wireless technologies, to include the teachings of Choo to explicitly disclose suspending or pending the transaction for a period of time in motivation of insuring security and validation of the transaction.
Although Laracey teaches settling a transaction using wireless communication means, Laracey does not explicitly disclose resume the transaction via near field communication technology.
Cho teaches resume the transaction via near field communication technology [Abstract, Paragraphs 0014, 0026, 0143-0165 Figures 5-6 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Laracey, which teaches transaction security settlement and use of devices and wireless technologies and receipt of a second command to authorize or advance a transaction, to include the teachings of Choo to explicitly disclose resuming a transaction in response to a wireless communication command or trigger such as that of a device being in contact with another device using wireless communication to resume the transaction in motivation of insuring that the entity making the payment is aware of the charges of the transaction and is authorizing said payment to be carried out. Therefore enhancing user experience and security.
Per claims 2, and 9, Laracey teaches transmitting, by the access device to the smart device, an indicator indicating the transaction being authorized or declined based on a content of the transaction authorization response message [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0035].
Per claims 3, and 10, Laracey teaches receiving, by the access device from the smart device, an initial communication via near field communication prior to transmitting the first message including the data associated with the transaction to the smart device, wherein the access device receives the cryptogram from the smart device via the near field communication [Paragraphs 0012-0021, 0029-0031, and 0035-0036].
Per claims 4, and 11, Laracey teaches wherein the access device receives the cryptogram from the smart device via a wireless connection [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0035].
Per claim 5, Laracey teaches wherein the access device receives the cryptogram from the smart device via near field communication [Paragraphs 0034-0036].
Per claims 6 and 13, Laracey teaches wherein the smart device is transported from a first position proximate to the access device to a second position proximate to a payment device [Paragraphs 0012-0021, 0034-0036].
Examiner notes that claims 6 and 13 recite a transportation function that cannot be carried out by the devices. In near-field communication, devices must be proximate one another to allow communication between devices; therefore, it is well settled in the art that to use near-field communication, the devices have to be proximate one another. The teaching of the use of near-field communication inherently results in the devices being proximate one another otherwise data would not be transferable via said near-field communication. See ISO/IEC 18092, ISO/IEC 14443 standards.
Per claims 7 and 14, Laracey teaches wherein the access device and a payment device communicate with each other only through the smart device [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0033-0034 and Figures 1 and 3].
Per claim 12, Laracey teaches wherein the transaction is between the resource provider and a user of a payment device [Paragraphs 0029-0031, and 0033-0034 and Figures 1 and 3].
Examiner Comment
The claims are not rejected under double patenting, in view of Patent 11790361, because the claims are not allowable and not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, if the claims are deemed allowable in the future, then a double patenting rejection will be addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892. See cited references that teach Applicant’s claimed scope. Furthermore, non-patent literature cited also teaches how tokenization is utilized to hide user sensitive data and allow a transaction to be processed. Furthermore, NPL to Ming-Hour Yang teaches using cryptograms generated by a mobile device and communicated to a merchant to settle a transaction based on transaction data and account information. See attached NPL.
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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699