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 action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 09/10/2026.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 have been canceled.
Claims 8 and 18 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 19-20 have been examined.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 19-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In page 11, the applicant asserted that “the claims integrate an alleged abstract concept into a practical application and are directed to a technological improvement in QR-code authentication” However, the merging of QR code does not add to an improvement of technology. Rather, it is leveraging the use of existing technology in creating NFT built into a QR code. The scanning prevention aspect of the QR code, last limitation, is within the existing framework of the QR code scanning technology. This use of these technology is still an “applying it” aspect rather than a recitation of a technology. Hence, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Likewise, the same analysis could be performed under Step 2B Prong Two analysis, limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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, 7-13, 19-20 are directed to a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 are grouped together. Claim 11, for instance, recites, in part, A system for providing a quick response (“QR”) code having increased security authentication parameters, the system comprising: a dependent user device; one or more independent user devices; and a point of sale (“POS”) device; the dependent user device configured to: receive a request to generate a dependent QR code for requesting a transaction; and create a dependent QR code including: an encrypted algorithmic code stored in an encryption field; and a request for the transaction; the one or more independent user devices configured to: receive the request for the transaction; and create one or more independent QR codes, the dependent QR code being unable to transact without obtaining approval from one or more users associated with the one or more independent QR codes associated with the dependent QR code; the POS device configured to: scan the dependent QR code; decrypting, using a dependent QR encryption field reader, encrypted algorithm code to identify: the dependent QR code; and the one or more independent QR codes; request approval for the transaction from the one or more users associated with the one or more independent QR codes, wherein each of the one or more users associated with the one or more independent QR codes can either approve or reject the transaction; create one or more trust deficit non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) for each of the one or more independent QR codes associated with one or more users rejecting the transaction; amalgamate the dependent QR code and the one or more independent QR codes to form a merged QR code, the merged QR code comprising: the dependent QR code; the one or more independent QR codes; and the one or more trust deficit NFTs on the dependent QR code; determine that the dependent QR code has a number of trust deficit NFTs that is greater than a threshold number; and reject the transaction in response to a determination that the dependent QR code has a number of trust deficit NFTs greater than the threshold number; and allowing a scan of the dependent QR code to be processed at a QR code scanning device when the number of trust deficit NFTs is four or less, wherein the threshold number is five, wherein a location of the dependent QR code within the merged QR code is determined based on the decrypted algorithmic code and wherein the decrypted algorithmic code determines a placement of a plurality of trust deficit NFTs within the merged QR code; placing the plurality of trust deficit NFTs within the merged QR code such that it allows a scan of the dependent QR code to be processed at a QR code scanning device when the number of trust deficit NFTs is less than the threshold number; and placing the plurality of trust deficit NFTs within the merged QR code such that it prevents a scan of the dependent QR code to be processed at a QR code scanning device when the number of trust deficit NFTs is greater than the threshold number. These limitations are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity - commercial interactions – business relations, via the use of generic computer components (creating subsidiary QR codes for transactional purposes). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, such as a system, a dependent user device, one or more independent user devices, QR codes, NFTs, are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2 and 12 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite generating an additional trust deficit NFT when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as user devices) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 3 and 13 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite trust deficit NFT when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as user devices) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 7 and 17 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite determine that a dependent QR code has lower than a threshold number of NFTs. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as NFT, merged QR code) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 9 and 19 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite determining that the dependent QR code within the merged QR code holds at least a threshold number of trust NFTs. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as NFT, merged QR code) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 10 and 20. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite rejecting the transaction in response to a determination that the dependent QR code within the merged QR code holds more trust deficit NFTs than trust NFTs. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as NFT, merged QR code) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 7-13, 19-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson, can be reached at (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights