DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 10/6/2025. Amendments to Claim 1 have been entered. New claims 2-16 have been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities. Examiner suggests the following changes to recite the verbiage in a clearer manner.
Regarding claim 12, Examiner notes that “evaluation point” is not found in the specification, however “evaluation value” is. In light of this, Examiner suggests the following amendment for clarity.
12. (New) The information terminal according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate an evaluation value for each evaluation item in a plurality of evaluation items regarding whether each candidate character string extracted from the image is the payment amount or not when the payment amount is recognized from the image, calculate a comprehensive evaluation value from the plurality of evaluation values, select, as the payment amount, a candidate character string having a highest value at a threshold value or more among the comprehensive evaluation values of the respective candidate character strings, and output a result that the payment amount cannot be recognized when there is no candidate character string that becomes the threshold value or more.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a device; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for processing a payment, which is a commercial or legal interaction and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 1, in bold below, recite the abstract idea as follows:
1. (Currently Amended) An information terminal comprising:
a camera;
communication circuitry for communicating with a server;
a microphone for capturing audio; and
a processor, wherein
the camera is configured to capture an image including at least a code of payment destination information and a character string of a payment amount, and
the processor is configured to
compare a first recognition amount indicated by the character string extracted from the image with a second recognition amount acquired from the audio captured by the microphone, and
when the first recognition amount and the second recognition amount match each other, issue a payment command including the payment destination information and the payment amount to the server via the communication circuitry.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of an “an information a camera; communication circuitry for communicating with a server; a microphone for capturing audio; and a processor,” communicating with a “server”, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network and a camera for capturing images to perform the steps of capturing an image of a payment amount, comparing first and second amounts and when they match issue a payment command. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network and capturing an image, see at least FIG.1, the terminal is a smartphone, FIG.3 and paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0042-0043], [0089-0090] and [0101-0103] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed, communicating over a generic network and capturing images to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of processing a payment, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-16 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claim 2 recites displaying completion confirming information when this information is received. Displaying information is an abstract idea and is further refining the abstract idea but for the nominal recitation of the generic computing element with a generic display. Claim 3 further refines the abstract idea by starting a timer for a period of time when the payment amount and destination is recognized, displaying said timer and issuing the payment command after the time has expired. There are no technical implementation details and thus this is merely refining the abstract idea. Claims 4, 5 and 6 recite recognizing information from a photographed image at a very high level of generality. There are technical implementation details such that this is anything other than leveraging QR code recognition software. Claim 7 recites recognizing a purchase amount from an image, start a timer, display the time and issue a command for payment which is further refining the abstract idea with nothing significantly more. Claim 8 recites, at a high level of generality, cancelling the payment process based on detecting a predetermined cancellation of said payment which is part of the abstract idea but for the nominal recitation of a generic computer element programmed to perform the abstract idea. Claim 9 further defines the terminal as a generic head mounted display with nothing significantly more. Claim 10 further defines the head mounted display performing insignificant extra-solution activity akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); MPEP 2106.05(d). Displaying information is also a mental abstract idea, see EPG. Claim 11 recites, at a very high level of generality and with no technical detail implementation, using gestures to cause or cancel a payment command. This is not inventive but merely using known technology as it was designed to be used. Claim 12 further defines the abstract idea by calculating values and output results with no technical details. Claim 13 recites displaying information and selecting certain information by the user with nothing significantly more. Claim 14 further defines the abstract idea by obtaining the payment amount, matching said amount with a known amount and issue the payment command with no technical implementation detail. This is further refining the abstract idea and applying the abstract idea on generic computing elements communication and displaying information. Claim 15 merely recites transmitting completion information between generic computing devices with nothing significantly more. Claim 16 recites recognizing information based on an arrangement of the position of the code with nothing significantly more.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for processing a payment) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for processing a payment) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. However, in order to expedite prosecution, independent claim 1 is amended such that it more clearly meets the requirements of 35 U S.C.101.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s invention is squarely directed to processing a payment transaction through receiving and comparing data, i.e. matching payment amounts. This is a commercial or legal interaction method of organizing human activity. Matching information from two separate sources is not inventive and Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements at a very high level of generality to automate an otherwise manual process.
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 CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693