DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 07/16/2026
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-22 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-24 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A Terminal Disclaimer was filed on 05/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In page 15, the applicant asserted that “[the] combination of at least the above elements integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by virtue of the above-recited details and functionality”. However, using the same mobile device to establish and create the second currency does not advance any technological aspect. The concept is similar to making an international wire transfer where you could request to transfer, for example, an amount denominated in USD currency and request the second currency on receiving side to be denominated in Yen or Euro. While noting that the use of a mobile device helps to expedite the transaction (rather than having to show up at the bank branch), the use of a mobile application to perform the transfer of currency using QR code does not advance any technological aspects. The limitations, hence, are not indicative of integration into 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) (Prong Two – Step 2A).
Similarly, under Step 2B Prong Two, the limitations 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 1-5, 7-24 are directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-5, 7-24 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 1-24 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.
Claim 1, 9, 17 are similar. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A mobile device, comprising: a processor; a display device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are executable to cause the mobile device to perform operations comprising: displaying, on the display device, a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a group of one or more graphical display elements, wherein each of the one or more graphical display elements are selectable by a user of the mobile device to advance progress of a first electronic transaction initiated by the user; detecting a user selection of a first graphical display element of the group of graphical display elements, wherein the first graphical display element corresponds to first account information associated with a first pre-established account, wherein the first pre-established account comprises funds denominated in a first currency; based on the user selection, making a first GUI modification that causes the GUI to display a data entry element that is operable by the user, via the display device, to enter a first transaction amount corresponding to the first electronic transaction, wherein the transaction amount is denominated in the first currency; receiving, via the GUI from the user, a confirmation of an intent to proceed with the first electronic transaction; based on the confirmation, causing transmission of a first machine-readable code from the mobile device to a first transaction machine to perform the first electronic transaction, wherein the first machine- readable code comprises the first account information and the first transaction amount, and wherein the first electronic transaction is conducted in the first currency to purchase funds denominated in a second currency different from the first currency; based on the first transaction machine causing completion of the first electronic transaction, receiving second account information associated with a second account different from the first account and denominated in the second currency; making a second GUI modification based on the second account information, wherein the second GUI modification includes adding a new graphical display element to the group of graphical display elements, wherein the new graphical display element is selectable by the user, via the GUI, to advance progress of a second electronic transaction initiated by the user subsequent to the mobile device adding the new graphical display element to the group of graphical display elements and subsequent to the mobile device electronically receiving an indication of completion of the first electronic transaction, wherein the second electronic transaction is in the second currency and is different from the first electronic transaction; receiving, from the user via the GUI and relative to the second transaction, a user selection of the new graphical display element from the group of graphical display elements; based on the user selection of the new graphical display element, creating a second machine- readable code corresponding to the second electronic transaction, wherein the second machine-readable code comprises the second account information and a second transaction amount denominated in the second currency, wherein creating the second machine readable-code includes using information stored locally on the mobile device and does not require additional communication from the mobile device to the first transaction machine; and causing transmission of the second machine-readable code from the mobile device to a second transaction machine that is different from the first transaction machine, wherein the second-machine readable code includes information usable by the second transaction machine to complete the second transaction without communication to the first transaction machine. These limitations are directed to perform currency exchanges – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a processor-readable memory, a mobile device, a user interface, a display device, a computing device processor, a user device, a GUI, a first machine readable code, a user interface, a second transaction machine, a first machine readable code, a second machine readable code recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, generating, and configuring) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to 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. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. 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). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to compose a risk profile and purchase insurance based on such risk for a property is not an Inventive Concept. 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.
Claim 2, 10, 18 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 the claims recite transaction machines and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a first transaction machine, a second transaction machine, a non-transitory processor readable medium ) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20 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 the claims recite sending machine readable code from one device to another and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a first transaction machine, a second transaction machine, an NFC device, a mobile device, a machine-readable code, a non-transitory processor readable medium ) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 13, 14, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) displaying machine-readable code for scanning between devices. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application 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 claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing device processor, a machine readable code, a display device, a scanner, a non-transitory processor readable medium) 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).
Claims 7, 15, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a process of determining a location of the device and displaying as option for selection 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 claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a display device, a computing device processor, a non-transitory processor readable medium) 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).
Claims 8, 16, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a pre-established account 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 claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, non-transitory processor readable medium) 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).
14. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-24 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 on 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, Michael W. Anderson, can be reached on (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