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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 11/18/2025 by Applicant. Claims 1, 9, 14, 15 and 19 are five (5) independent claims reciting method, method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, terminal and server claims. Claims 2-8, 10-13, none, 16-18 and 20 are respective dependent claims. Said claim amendments of 11/18 have amended Claims 1-4 and 6-20 (i.e., amended all claims except Claim 5).
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 18 NOVEMBER 2025 for its original application of 07 MARCH 2024 that is titled: “Method and Apparatus for Payment Service”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 9, 14, 15 and 19 are independent payment method, method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, terminal and server claims respectively. Examiner notes that a comparison of independent claims was attached as Appendix in NFR OA of 08/18 to show why Claim 9 (with most limitations) was chosen as exemplary claim.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 9: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: a method of providing a payment service, the method comprising: receiving [[]] a country-code [[]] connected to the payment service, wherein the country code indicates a country; [[]] determining whether an international credit card is one of available payment methods; and based on whether the account is authenticated, determining a default [[]] payment method [[]] of the available payment methods; and transmitting an indication of whether the international credit card is one of the available payment methods; and an indication of the determined default payment method. These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: a server, a communication module, an electronic signal, and a terminal as in: operating a server, receiving, via a communication module of the server, an electronic signal; and [[checking]] determining whether an account corresponding to the terminal is authenticated; and transmitting, via the communication module of the server, an electronic signal. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The devices/ processors (module, terminal and server) in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: a server, a communication module, an electronic signal, and a terminal as in: operating a server, receiving, via a communication module of the server, an electronic signal; and [[checking]] determining whether an account corresponding to the terminal is authenticated; and transmitting, via the communication module of the server, an electronic signal. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that the devices/processors are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0084]-[0086] and [0090]-[0092] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0084] According to an embodiment, the terminal 110 and the server 120 may each include a memory (e.g., 911 and 921), a processor (e.g., 913 and 923), a communication module (e.g., 915 and 925), and an input/output interface (e.g., 917 and 927). ……..………………………………..
[0085] According to an embodiment, the processor (913 and 923) may perform at least one of the operations described above with reference to FIGS. 1 to 8. For example, the processor 913 may perform at least one of the operations performed in the terminal 110 using the payment service described above with reference to FIGS. 1 to 7, and the processor 923 may perform at least one of the operations for the payment service described above with reference to FIG. 8. The processor (913 and 923) may be configured to process instructions of a computer program by performing basic arithmetic, logic, and input/output operations. The instructions may be provided to the processor (913 and 923) by the memory (911 and 921) or the communication module (915 and 925). ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0086] The memory (911 and 921) may be a computer-readable recording medium, which may include a volatile memory or a non-volatile memory. According to an embodiment, the memory (911 and 921) may store information for executing the payment app or the payment web described above with reference to FIGS. 1 to 7. For example, the memory 921 may store user account information and chat room information of a user subscribed to a payment service.”} ……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0090] For example, a request generated by the processor 913 of the terminal 110 according to a program code for a payment app or payment web stored in a recording device such as the memory 911 may be transmitted to the server 120 through the network 130 under the control of the communication module 915. ………………………………………………………………………………….
[0091] For example, control signals, commands, content, files, and the like provided under the control of the processor 923 of the server 120 may be received by the terminal 110 through the communication module 915 of the terminal 110 by passing through the communication module 925 and the network 130. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0092] The input/output interface (917 and 927) may be a means for interfacing with an input/ output device 919. For example, an input device may include a device such as a keyboard r a mouse, and an output device may include a device such as a display for displaying a communication session of an application. For another example, the input/ output interface 917 may be a means for interfacing with a device (e.g., a touchscreen) in which input and output functions are integrated. For example, when processing a command of a computer program loaded on the memory 911, the processor 913 of the terminal 110 may display a service screen or content constructed using data provided by the server 120 on a display through the input/ output interface 917. An input received from the user through the input/output device 919 may be provided in a form that may be processed by the processor 913 of the terminal 110 through the input/output interface 917.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent method Claim 1, independent non-transitory computer=readable storage medium Claim 14, independent terminal Claim 15 and independent server Claim 19, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 9. Further-more, the limitations of dependent method Claims 10-13, further narrow independent method Claim 9 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the country-related information comprises a country code of the terminal,……; wherein the determining of the default value of the payment method comprises:……; wherein the determining of the default value of the payment method comprises:……; receiving a payment request corresponding to the selected payment method from the terminal;……; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection above of the independent method Claim 9. Similarly, dependent method Claims 2-8, and dependent terminal Claims 16-18, and dependent server Claim 20 also further narrow their independent Claims 1, 15 and 19 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 18 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that all of the previous rejections under 35 USC §103 have been withdrawn. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein with rejection under 35 USC 101 only with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks of 11/18/2025.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 11/18/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application {“is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 11/18/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the instant application’s independent claims are {“generally directed to improving the technical process of operating terminals and servers implementing a payment process to present appropriate payment options and a default payment option.”}. There is no such improvement described, for example, in Specification’s para [0007] for terminals -- {“According to some embodiments, there is provided a method of operating a terminal using a payment service, the method including: obtaining country-related information of the terminal; setting an international card as one of payment methods based on the country-related information; and based on whether an account corresponding to the terminal is authenticated, determining a default value of a payment method corresponding to the account.”}, and para [0015] for servers -- {“According to another aspect, there is provided a method of operating a server providing a payment service, the method including: obtaining country-related information of a terminal connected to the payment service; providing an international card as an option for a payment method to the terminal based on the country-related information; checking whether an account corresponding to the terminal is authenticated; and based on whether the account is authenticated, determining a default value of a payment method corresponding to the account.”}.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 11/18/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the instant application provides --- {“an improvement in the technical field by specifying details of specific multi-step processes to address issues arising based on differences in country codes, authentication status, and corresponding available payment options. See, e.g., Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 of the USPTO's eligibility guidance. The dependent claims, such as claims 2 and 4, include even more details of specific multi-step processes.”} Examiner notes that telecommunication terminals are specified a telephone code based on their location in a country (e.g., +1 for USA) per ITU (International Telecommunications Union) agreement/s. Further, Examiner notes that Claim 2 of Example 35 was found to be eligible based on {“the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data) operates in a non-conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea.”}. Similarly, Claim 3 of Example 35 was found to be eligible based on {“the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM’s provision of the random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the customer confirmation code in response to the random code, the ATM’s analysis of the customer confirmation code, and the ATM’s subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM and thus allow or prevent a transaction based on the analysis of the code data sets) operates in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea.”}. Examiner notes that the instant application’s Claims and/or Specification (as argued by the Applicant) do not describe a “combination of the steps” similar to independent Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35, as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims; and said prior art includes references with synonyms for terms used in the claims that have been interpreted under the BRI (broad reasonable interpretation) procedures of the Office. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691