DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed with RCE on 08/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined hereon.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is directed to anonymizing transaction data that are between customers and merchants based on the customers’ reputation evaluation during double auctions. If the rejection rendered hereon is properly overcome, the claims may become patentable as the prior art made of record alone or in combination do not disclose:
designing an anonymous transaction scheme based on reputation evaluation and a double auction, and selecting, through the double auction, candidate collaborative users who meet a reputation requirement, a privacy requirement and a bid standard of a requesting user, to construct an anonymous set, which is composed of the selected candidate collaborative users; verifying digital signatures on collaboration requests, replies, transaction credentials, and collaboration credentials before any fund-transfer step: automatically broadcasting messages indicating a failed verification; storing the broadcasted messages as reputation evidence via blockchain node consensus; and inserting, between the requesting user and a merchant the anonymous set to cut off a direct transaction association between the user and the merchant and implement transaction anonymization.
Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to combine the above missing elements.
Response to Arguments
The Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/27/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 since the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as set forth in the last Office action because Applicant disagrees with the rejection and submits a subject matter eligibility Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 made by Youliang TIAN describing argument how claim 1 would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and that the claim is not directed to a method of organizing human activity as the claim is not a contractual arrangement, business relation, sales activity, or mere rule for interpersonal conduct, but is a networked privacy-protection mechanism for changing how an actual mobile-payment transaction is anonymized and verified as the Specification explains that this anonymous set transforms the actual transaction into divided transactions through collaborative users so that the platform cannot determine the physical relation between the user and the consumption location.
Further, Applicant is of the opinion that claim 1 is not merely a mathematical concept as the Specification describes reputation values, auction bids, and formulas in supporting embodiments hence the claim does not seek to preempt a mathematical relationship or calculation as such as claim I is a method claim that merely involves an abstract idea, thereby rendering it patent eligible.
Additionally, Applicant is of the opinion that claim 1 is a method claim that merely involves an abstract idea, thereby rendering it patent eligible even if a computer or processor is used to implement the abstract idea, the effect of the implementation of the abstract idea still results in a technical improvement, as detailed in the accompanying declaration. As discussed in the declaration, the features of claim I improve the electronic mobile payment technical field, as it provides location privacy by accounting for malicious or low-reputation collaborative users, which can lead to leakage of transaction information and reduced anonymity. Claim 1 addresses the mobile-payment location privacy problem by inserting an anonymous set of selected collaborative users between the requesting user and the merchant, thereby cutting off the direct transaction association that the Specification identifies as the source of location privacy leakage. Together, these features protect privacy while maintaining transaction integrity by anonymizing the user-merchant relationship and discouraging or recording malicious participant behavior. Therefore, Applicant states that claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as the features of claim 1 improve the electronic mobile payment technical field by accounting for malicious or low-reputation collaborative users and inserting, between the requesting user and a merchant, the anonymous set to cut off a direct transaction association between the user and the merchant and implement transaction anonymization.
As discussed in detail above, claim 1 provides a significant improvement the technical field, and the claim is patentable eligible under Step 2B for the same reasons discussed above with respect to step 2A. The Applicant also respectfully submits that the claimed method is not routine or conventional.
Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position and Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 made by Youliang TIAN, but respectfully continue to disagree that the claims are patent patent-eligible because the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application contrary to the rebuttal made by Applicant’s and the Youliang TIAN on the Declaration’s because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the additional element of “verifying digital signatures…” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, contrary to Applicant’s position, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B, using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing customers, merchants and auction data to implement anonymized transaction. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible as the claimed invention remains to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and Examiner sustains the rejection.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of patent eligibility fails to outweigh the evidence of patent ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an anonymous set generation module…” “a transaction execution module…” and “a reputation update module…” in Claim 7, “An information data processing terminal,” Claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the modules element in the claim, the instant PGPub at list provides: “The device of the present disclosure and its modules may be implemented by hardware circuits such as very large-scale integrated circuits (VLSI) or gate arrays, semiconductors such as logic chips and transistors, or programmable hardware devices such as field programmable gate arrays and programmable logic devices, or by software executed by various types of processors, or by a combination of the foregoing hardware circuits and software, such as firmware.” at Par. [0245]
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a Method (Process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of transaction anonymization, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and “Mathematical Concepts,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions, managing relationships and mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to processing customers data and auctions data to associate customers with merchants based on reputation requirements, privacy requirements and bid standards of a requesting users, to construct an anonymous set based on auctions before associating the anonymous sets with consumers and merchants to implement transactions anonymization during commercial interactions between consumers, merchants and transaction service providers using mathematical operations to completing transaction only after all collaborative users have executed respective transactions. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 1,
A method for protecting location privacy in mobile payment, comprising:
introducing a decentralized coin mixing idea into mobile payment, and
constructing an anonymous transaction model and a reputation evaluation model in a mobile payment environment;
designing a user reputation evaluation scheme, and
measuring a reputation value of a user based on historical behavior of the user;
designing an anonymous transaction scheme based on reputation evaluation and a double auction, and
establishing a functional relationship between the reputation value of the user and an auction bid;
selecting, through the double auction, candidate collaborative users who meet a reputation requirement, a privacy requirement and a bid standard of a requesting user, to construct an anonymous set, which is composed of the selected candidate collaborative users, wherein a secure communication link exists between the requesting user and each of the selected collaborative users;
verifying digital signatures on collaboration requests, replies, transaction credentials, and collaboration credentials before any fund-transfer step;
automatically broadcasting messages indicating a failed verification;
storing the broadcasted messages as reputation evidence via blockchain node consensus;
completing an actual transaction only after all collaborative users in the anonymous set have executed respective transactions; and
inserting, between requesting the user and a merchant, the anonymous set to cut off a direct transaction association between the user and the merchant and implement transaction anonymization.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the additional element of “verifying digital signatures…” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing customers, merchants and auction data to implement anonymized transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of verifying digital signatures also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 further describe the abstract idea of processing customers, merchants and auction data to implement anonymized transaction. That is, although claim 7 recites a system with modules and claim 8 recites a computer device each are used for performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Further, claim 9 recites a computer-readable storage medium, as described in further detail below, reads on a transitory signal, and thus does not fall within the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claim analysis is provided for claim 9 as well, because it would apply if the claim was amended to fall within the four statutory categories of invention and again the system of claim 9 as whole is used for performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, claims 2-6 and 10-20 recite functional steps and processing of mathematical operation of 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. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)
Claim 9 recites “A computer-readable storage medium,…” The term “computer-readable storage medium” is broad enough to read on a transitory signal. A machine readable media can encompass transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se). As the claimed system only exists when all of its elements exist, and the claimed system includes transitory elements that only exist in a brief period of time, the system as a whole is transitory. According to MPEP § 2106, there are four categories of invention: process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter. Therefore, “computer-readable medium” is neither a category of invention nor a subset of one of the categories. Therefore, the claim does not represent patent eligible subject matter. (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
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 7-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “A system… using the method… according to claim 1.” Claim 8 is directed to “A computer device… to perform steps of the method… according to claim 1.” Claim 9 is directed to “A computer-readable storage medium… to perform steps of the method… according to claim 1.” However, claim 1 is directed to “A method...” which makes claims 7-9 unclear if the claims are directed to the method claim of 1 from which each depend on or directed to a system, a device or a medium, respectively. Therefore, the scope of the claims are unclear. (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim 10 is also rejected based on the same rational as it recites “An information data processing terminal… according to claim 7,” while claim 7 is a system claim.
Claims 10-15 and 16-20 are also rejected as each depend on claims 7 and 8 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Applicant’s admitted prior art in the background of the specification (PGPub), Liu et al. (US 2024/0394693 A1) discloses:
introducing a decentralized coin mixing idea into mobile payment. (Par. [0011] “Maxwell et al. proposed a decentralized coin mixing scheme called Coinjoin without the participation of any trusted or untrusted third-party mixing server… Mardi et al. proposed a multiparty shuffling scheme to resolve a problem of high system overheads caused by the need for a plurality of signatures from participants in the existing decentralized coin mixing scheme”)
wherein a secure communication link exists between the requesting user and each of the selected collaborative users. (Par. [0009] “Asymmetrically encrypted communication information is transmitted through an intermediary to prevent an attacker from identifying the identities of and a relation between both communication parties.”)
PGPub Ramasubramanian et al. (US 2022/0351208 A1) discloses:
a reputation evaluation model in a mobile payment environment; (Pars. [0007] “the reputation score generator uses a classification model based on a neural network for determining the reputation score by taking into account additional parameters including a frequency of the purchase transactions, monetary amounts of respective purchase transactions, categories of items that the buyer has purchased, and the like.” [0018], [0067])
designing a user reputation evaluation scheme (“computing”), (Figs. 3A-E; Pars. [0024], [0049] “FIG. 3E illustrates an example of a process for generating a reputation score in accordance with the aspects of the present disclosure. A computation 300E illustrates generating the reputation score based on weighted reputation factors and a number of instances of successful/failed transactions. A reputation score may be a sum of products of reputation factors and a number of incidents.”) and
measuring a reputation value (“generates a reputation score”) of a user based on historical behavior of the user; (Fig. 5; Pars. [0024], [0055] “Generate operation 506 generates a reputation score for the participant. In aspects, the reputation score generator generates the reputation score based on a number of transactions with various types of outcomes in a transaction history of the participant.” [0045])
completing an actual transaction only after all collaborative users in the anonymous set have executed respective transactions. (Par. [0039] “Each entry of a transaction log may include a date, time, and a completion status of the transaction, a buyer, a seller, an item identifier, a quantity of items, and a total price of the transaction.”)
PGPub Busch et al. (US 2018/0285969 A1) discloses constructing an anonymous transaction model. (Par. [0017] “the evaluation system 110 comprises a model creator 114 that is configured to use input data 104 provided by one or more service providers 102 to generate and train a plurality of predictive models for determining propensities of a consumer 112 based on various sets of input data… Accordingly, in some examples, prior to training predictive models, the predictive model creator 114 is operative to depersonalize or sanitize the input data 104 (e.g., remove consumer names, SSNs, other consumer-identification information).”)
PGPub Taylor et al. (US 2016/0292758 A1) discloses establishing a functional relationship between the reputation value of the user and an auction bid. (Figs. 4-5, 18; Pars. [0051], [0069] “the commerce system 1100 may implement a reputation system whereby the reputation of a particular user is expressed according to a particular scale or as a score. Any number of factors may contribute towards the establishment and definition of a reputation of a user, such as feedback from parties with whom the relevant user has interacted utilizing the commerce system 1100 (e.g., a number of negative of positive feedback comments), a history of transaction activity by the relevant user with respect to the commerce system 1100 , and a history of violations of rules established by the commerce system 1100.” [0070])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
