DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed November 16, 2021, (which is on or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon Application No. 202110850722.6 filed in China (CN) on July 27, 2021. The receipt of the certified copy of this foreign application on December 19, 2023, is acknowledged. The priority claim to the foreign priority document in question was timely made in the application data sheet filed December 19, 2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-11, and 20, are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 11/26/2025 amending claims 1, 3-11, and 20; and canceling claims 2 and 12-19. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objections of claims 1 and 8; the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 20; and the previous grounds of § 103 rejection of claim 1, 3-11, and 20. Examiner has, however, established new § 101 rejection for claims 1, 3-11, and 20, in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection weas necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the instant rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 20, is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
§ 101 Rejection: Applicant is arguing in page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks:
The claims have been amended to recite a specific technical method implemented by the terminal. The method is implemented using IMS signaling channel, SIP signaling, a real-time media data transmission channel, and an IMS data channel. As amended, the claims are no longer directed to an abstract idea, nor do they recite an abstract idea without meaningful technical integration.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amended claims are recited in high level of generality lacking details and specifics regarding technological solution to a problem of technology. Instant claims merely use technology (“IMS signaling channel,” “SIP signaling,” “a real-time media data transmission channel,” and “an IMS data channel”) in solving a business problem (“performing an order payment”) instead of improving technology. Therefore, instant claims are not patent eligible under § 101.
Prior Art under § 1032 and § 103: Closest prior art reference Jia (WO 2017084442 A1) discloses:
The embodiment of the invention claims a mobile payment method, terminal device initiating the payment request to the payment platform through the first channel and storing the payment session information, session information of the payment comprises payment identification; when terminal device confirms the payment cannot be finished payment session identification corresponding to through said first channel, a second channel established between the said payment platform, the terminal device sends the payment request to the payment platform through the second channel, which carries the payment identification. payment session information and uses the stored the payment identification corresponding to the second channel, continue with the payment platform performs the payment identification corresponding to the payment session, improves the success rate of payment, meanwhile, it avoids the user account funds transfer after the user performs the payment deduction repeatedly caused by occurrence of the condition.
However, Jia does not disclose – alone or in combination with other references – the claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 as an ordered combination of steps.
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, 3-11, and 20, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1, 3-11, and 20, is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, and 20, are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1, 3-11, and 20, however, recite an abstract idea of performing an order payment. The creation of performing an order payment, as recited in the independent claims 1 and 10 belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1 and 10, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“establishing, after the terminal is powered on, an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) signaling channel with an IMS network node” (claims 1 and 10); and
“establishing, based on the SIP signaling, a real-time media data transmission channel and IMS data channel with the IMS network node” (claims 1 and 10).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements:
“an IMS signaling channel” (claims 1 and 10);
“a SIP signaling” (claims 1 and 10);
“a real-time media data transmission channel” (claims 1 and 10); and
“an IMS data channel” (claims 1 and 10).
Further, independent claims 1 and 10 recite following additional limitations of insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“receiving an instruction associated with the IMS network node” (claims 1 and 10);
“sending, based on the received instruction, a session initiation protocol (SIP) signaling to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel” (claims 1 and 10);
“sending, to the IMS network node, a code through the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel” (claim 1);
“receiving, from the IMS network node, a confirm request through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel, wherein the confirm request is associated with the code” (claim 1);
“sending, to the IMS network node, in response to the confirm request, confirmation information through the IMS signaling channel or the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel” (claim 1); and
“receiving, from the IMS network node, success information through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel, wherein the success information is indicative of a successful order payment associated with the code” (claim 1);
“sending, to the IMS network node, order information through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel” (claim 10);
“receiving, from the IMS network node, a confirm request through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel, wherein the confirm request is associated with the order information” (claim 10);
“sending, to the IMS network node in response to the confirm request, payment confirmation information through the IMS signaling channel or the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel” (claim 10); and
“receiving, from the IMS network node, success information through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel, wherein the success information is indicative of a successful order payment associated with the order information” (claim 10).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1, 12, and 18, (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[0026] The present disclosure is applicable to a payment system supporting the data channel defined in the TS26.114 of the 3GPP. With reference to FIG. 1, the payment system may include a terminal 110, a core network 120, and a payment platform 130. The terminal 110, the core network 120, and the payment platform 130 may be connected to one another with any suitable connection method, such as through a wired network or a wireless network.
[0028] In an implementation, the terminal 110 may include a signaling control module, a real-time media data transmission module, and a data channel transmission module. In an implementation, the payment platform 130 may include a signaling control module, an audio/video stream analysis module, a data channel transmission module, and a payment identity authentication and settlement system. []
[0157] An embodiment of the present disclosure provides a computer-readable storage medium, which has at least one instruction, at least one program, and a code set or an instruction set stored therein, and the at least one instruction, the at least one program, and the code set or the instruction set are loaded and executed by a processor to implement any of the order payment methods described above.
[0158] An embodiment of the present disclosure provides a terminal including a processor and a memory having at least one instruction stored therein, and the instruction is loaded and executed by the processor to implement any of the order payment method described above.
This is a description of general-purpose computing system. Further, the additional limitations of “sending” and “receiving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception presumably using generic computer components (even though no computer components have been recited in independent claims 1 and 10). For the same reason, these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “sending” and “receiving” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 “send” and “receive” information over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized “sending” and “receiving” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional element/limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/ limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 3-9 and 11 depend on independent claim 1; and dependent claim 20 depends on independent claim 10. The elements in dependent claims 3-9, 11, and 20, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“detecting a dialing operation performed by a user, and determining that the instruction is received in response to determining that the dialing operation carrying is associated with a number of the IMS network node; or detecting an operation performed by the user in response to a control trigger, and determining that the instruction is received in response to determining that the trigger is associated with the IMS network node” (claim 3: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“scanning the code through a camera” (claim 4: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“recording the code to obtain a first video, and sending the first video to the IMS network node through the real-time media data transmission channel; or, photographing the code to obtain a first image, and sending the first image to the IMS network node through the IMS data channel” (claim 5: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“displaying the code through a remote video window, wherein a code scanning terminal is configured to scan the code” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“receiving a password input by the user, and sending the confirmation information comprising the password to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel; or, recording a face of the user to obtain a second video, and sending the confirmation information comprising the second video to the IMS network node through the real-time media data transmission channel; or, photographing a face of the user to obtain a second image, and sending the confirmation information comprising the second image to the IMS network node through the IMS data channel" (claim 7: where “recording” and “photographing” steps are further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “receiving” and “sending” steps are insignificant extra solution activity);
“prompting the user to select a payment mode from a code scanning mode and a code-displaying mode; in a case where the user selects the payment mode through dual tone multi-frequency (DTMF) keys, sending a selection result to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel; in a case where the user selects the payment mode through voice, sending a selection result to the IMS network node through the real-time media data transmission channel; receiving, through the IMS signaling channel or the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel, a control instruction sent by the IMS network node, with the control instruction generated by the IMS network node according to the selection result; and on a condition that the selection result corresponds to the code-scanning mode, turning on the camera according to the control instruction; or, on a condition that the selection result corresponds to the code-displaying mode, opening the remote video window according to the control instruction” (claim 8: where “prompting,” “turning on the camera,” and “opening the remote video window” steps are further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “sending” and “receiving” steps are insignificant extra solution activity);
“on a condition that the selection result corresponds to the code-displaying mode, receiving, through the IMS signaling channel or the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel, the control instruction sent by the IMS network node comprises: receiving the control instruction which does not comprise the payment code through the IMS signaling channel; or, receiving the control instruction carrying a third video through the real-time media data transmission channel, with the third video obtained by recording the code; or, receiving the control instruction carrying a third image through the IMS data channel, with the third image obtained by photographing the code” (claim 9: insignificant extra solution activity);
“sending through the IMS signaling channel or the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel, the confirmation information to the IMS network node comprises: receiving the confirmation information from a user, and sending the confirmation information to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel; or, receiving the password from the user, and sending the confirmation information carrying the password to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel; or, in a case where the order payment is performed through face recognition and a face of a user is recorded to obtain a second video, sending the confirmation information carrying the second video to the IMS network node through the real-time media data transmission channel; or, sending the confirmation information carrying the second image to the IMS network node through the IMS data channel” (claim 11: insignificant extra solution activity); and
“sending, through the IMS signaling channel or the real-time media data transmission channel or the IMS data channel, the confirmation information to the IMS network node comprises: in a case where the order payment is performed without a password, receiving the confirmation information from a user, and sending the confirmation information to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel; or, in a case where the order payment is performed with the password, receiving the password from the user, and sending the confirmation information comprising the password to the IMS network node through the IMS signaling channel or the IMS data channel; or, in a case where the order payment is performed through face recognition and a face of a user is recorded to obtain a second video, sending the confirmation information comprising the second video to the IMS network node through the real-time media data transmission channel; or, in a case where the order is performed through face recognition and a face of a user is photographed to obtain a second image, sending the confirmation information comprising the second image to the IMS network node through the IMS data channel” (claim 20: insignificant extra solution activity).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 3-9, 11, and 20, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 10 and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, and 20, are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (CN 115484236 A) discloses: “The embodiment of the application claims a method for establishing data channel, device, device, IMS control system and readable storage medium. The method comprises: the calling terminal initiates IMS call request; the calling terminal receives the preamble SDP from the data content server; the calling terminal performs data channel SDP negotiation with the data content server according to the preamble SDP, establishing a data channel.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691