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
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 15, and 16 are amended.
Applicants’ arguments with regard to the 101 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite a computer-enforced permission control which is a specific improvement and technical authorization control mechanism that restricts when the code can be used for payment. The unblock limitation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by requiring a user-specific gating configuration that prevents proxy payment unless and until the user authorizes use of the code.
The Office asserts that restricting when payment can be made and requiring authorization to use a payment source is an abstract idea. The use of the gating configuration merely adds the words “Appy it”, or the like, to the abstract idea.
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. The claim(s) recite(s):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium coupled to the processor, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code that:
receives a request for an authorization-by-proxy payment on delivery (POD);
generates an authorization-by-proxy code based upon buyer-controlled payment control parameters; and
utilizes the buyer-controlled payment parameters to control processing of a payment for the authorization-by-proxy POD, wherein a scan of an invoice associated with merchandise is scanned upon delivery of the merchandise, the scan of the invoice being used to verify an authenticity of the merchandise being delivered, wherein the authorization-by-proxy code and a user-specific unblocking application operate as part of a user- specific authorization gating configuration to allow an authorized proxy to pay for and receive merchandise associated with the authorization-by- proxy POD after a user specifically unblocks use of the authorization-by- proxy code.
7. A method, comprising:
receiving, an authorization-by-proxy code based upon buyer-controlled payment control parameters, the buyer-controlled payment parameters being used to control processing of a payment;
receiving merchandise ordered by a user of a user device, the merchandise being associated with a request by the user for an authorization-by- proxy payment on delivery (POD) of the merchandise;
performing a scan of an invoice associated with the merchandise upon delivery of the merchandise; and
utilizing the scan of the invoice to verify an authenticity of the merchandise being delivered, wherein the authorization-by-proxy code is configured to allow an authorized proxy to pay for and receive merchandise associated with the authorization-by-proxy POD after the user unblocks use of the authorization-by- proxy code.
16. A device, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium coupled to the processor, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code that:
receives an authorization-by-proxy code based upon buyer-controlled payment control parameters, the buyer-controlled payment parameters being used to control processing of a payment associated with merchandise;
receives merchandise associated with a user of a user device, the merchandise being associated with a request by the user for an authorization-by-proxy payment on delivery (POD) of the merchandise;
performs a scan of an invoice associated with the merchandise upon delivery of the merchandise; and
uses the scan of the invoice to verify an authenticity of the merchandise being delivered, wherein the authorization-by-proxy code is configured to allow an authorized proxy to pay for and receive merchandise associated with the authorization-by- proxy POD after the user unblocks use of the authorization-by-proxy code.
The abstract idea underlined reflects certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions including sales activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generic computer limitations represent adding the words "apply it", or the like to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and as a whole and in combination comprise the abstract idea and the words ”apply it”.
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.
Claim 1 and 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.
Claim 1 recites that a scan of an invoice…is scanned. It is unclear if the scan is scanned or the invoice is scanned. The examiner interprets the claim as scanning the invoice but appropriate correction is requested.
Claim 17 recites payment for the authorization-by-proxy (POD) but the claims are directed to paying for merchandise thus the limitation is unclear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights