DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/10/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 05/22/2026.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 31 and 38 recites “executing, at a point of sale terminal, a localized assessment of the packaged attributes data to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network, the executing including cross-checking, by the one or more processors at the point of sale terminal, location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period, wherein the localized assessment is configured to operate under offline conditions through delayed transaction processing”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support such limitation.
Paragraph 0043 recites “In some embodiments, offline approvals may be processed at POS terminal 112 before sending the transaction information to payment network 120 (e.g., delayed processing). In other embodiments, an offline transaction may be processed at POS terminal 112 and declined without sending the transaction information to payment network 120”, which supports the localized assessment at a POS prior to initiating communication with a payment network.
Paragraph 0039 recites “Upon approval by consumer 102, fraud detection engine 150 collects the payment transaction data and cross-checks it against the stored consumer validation credentials. For example, the merchant address may match against a consumer’s favorite dining establishment listed in the consumer's validation credentials,” which supports the fraud detection engine (at the payment network not at the POS) performing the cross-checking. The cross-checking is performed only when the “offline approvals” is processed at the POS and transaction information is sent to the payment network hosting the fraud engine.
Thus, the Original Disclosure does not support executing a local assessment at POS terminal cross-checking location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period before sending the transaction information to payment network.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are 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.
Claims 21, 31 and 38 recites “executing, at a point of sale terminal, a localized assessment of the packaged attributes data to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network, the executing including cross-checking, by the one or more processors at the point of sale terminal, location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period, wherein the localized assessment is configured to operate under offline conditions through delayed transaction processing”. It is unclear how the POS terminal possess the validation data collected during registration when operating under offline conditions.
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 21-40 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.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a process, an apparatus and a manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 21 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by one or more processors, validation data from one or more devices associated with one or more users during a one-time registration period;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a request for a service from at least one device associated with at least one user of the one or more users;
processing, by the one or more processors, the at least one device associated with the at least one user to determine attributes data associated with the request;
generating, by the one or more processors, a presentation of a first user interface in the at least one device requesting a release of the attributes data;
collecting, by the one or more processors, the attributes data associated with the request upon receiving an approval for the release of the attributes data from the at least one user;
packaging, by the one or more processors, the collected attributes data into a structured data format, wherein the structured data format includes a JSON format;
executing, at a point of sale terminal, a localized assessment of the attributes data to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network, the executing including cross- checking, by the one or more processors at the point of sale terminal, location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period, wherein the localized assessment is configured to operate under offline conditions through delayed transaction processing;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the attributes data to the validation data to determine a match for authenticating the service; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a presentation of a second user interface in the at least one device authenticating the request upon determining the match between the attributes data and the validation data.
Claim 31 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
collecting validation data from one or more devices associated with one or more users during a one-time registration period;
receiving a request for a service from at least one device associated with at least one user of the one or more users;
processing the at least one device associated with the at least one user to determine attributes data associated with the request;
generating a presentation of a first user interface in the at least one device requesting a release of the attributes data;
collecting the attributes data associated with the request upon receiving an approval for the release of the attributes data from the at least one user;
packaging the collected attributes data into a structured data format, wherein the structured data format includes a JSON format;
executing, at a point of sale terminal, a localized assessment of the attributes data to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network, the executing including cross- checking, by the one or more processors at the point of sale terminal, location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period, wherein the localized assessment is configured to operate under offline conditions through delayed transaction processing;
comparing the attributes data to the validation data to determine a match for authenticating the service; and
generating a presentation of a second user interface in the at least one device authenticating the request upon determining the match between the attributes data and the validation data.
Claim 38 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
collecting validation data from one or more devices associated with one or more users during a one-time registration period;
receiving a request for a service from at least one device associated with at least one user of the one or more users;
processing the at least one device associated with the at least one user to determine attributes data associated with the request;
generating a presentation of a first user interface in the at least one device requesting a release of the attributes data;
collecting the attributes data associated with the request upon receiving an approval for the release of the attributes data from the at least one user;
packaging the collected attributes data into a structured data format, wherein the structured data format includes a JSON format;
executing, at a point of sale terminal, a localized assessment of the attributes data to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network, the executing including cross- checking, by the one or more processors at the point of sale terminal, location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period, wherein the localized assessment is configured to operate under offline conditions through delayed transaction processing;
comparing the attributes data to the validation data to determine a match for authenticating the service; and
generating a presentation of a second user interface in the at least one device authenticating the request upon determining the match between the attributes data and the validation data.
Claims 22, 32 and 39 recite:
wherein collecting the validation data from the one or more devices comprises: storing, by the one or more processors, the validation data associated with the one or more users in a database, wherein the stored validation data is encrypted.
Claims 23, 33 and 40 recite:
wherein the validation data includes one or more of device identifiers associated with the one or more devices, biometric data associated with the one or more users, and contextual information associated with the one or more users.
Claims 24 and 34 recite:
wherein the contextual information includes preference information, and wherein the preference information includes one or more of frequently travelled destinations and preferred establishment.
Claims 25 and 35 recite:
wherein processing the at least one device to determine the attributes data comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, an interaction between the at least one device and a specialized computing device associated with a service provider, wherein the specialized computing device requests for the attributes data associated with the at least one user; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the collected attributes data to the specialized computing device.
Claims 26 and 36 recite:
wherein the attributes data includes location data of the service, and wherein the attributes data is collected utilizing a global positioning system (GPS) sensor.
Claims 27 and 37 recite:
wherein transmitting the collected attributes data to the specialized computing device comprises: generating a presentation of a third user interface in the at least one device associated with the at least one user, wherein the third user interface includes a notification for transmitting the attributes data to the specialized computing device, and wherein the attributes data is packaged into a data structure including an encoding format.
Claim 29 recites:
wherein comparing the attributes data to the validation data to determine the match for authenticating the service further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors utilizing a fraud detection engine, whether the attributes data matches the validation data; and denying, by the one or more processors, the request upon determining discrepancy between the attributes data and the validation data.
Claim 30 recites:
wherein the at least one device stores a payment vehicle for obtaining the attributes data associated with the request.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers processing transaction authentication. Processing transaction authentication is considered to be a commercial interaction between transaction parties, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of a “processor” as a mere tool to perform the collecting, receiving, processing, generating, comparing, storing, determining, transmitting, and denying steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “collecting, by one or more processors, validation data from one or more devices associated with one or more users during a one-time registration period” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of collecting validation data associated with one or more users;
the limitation “receiving, by the one or more processors, a request for a service from at least one device associated with at least one user of the one or more users” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving a request for a service;
the limitation “processing, by the one or more processors, the at least one device associated with the at least one user to determine attributes data associated with the request” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of processing data to determine attributes data associated with the request;
the limitation “generating, by the one or more processors, a presentation of a first user interface in the at least one device requesting a release of the attributes data” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting a release of the attributes data.
the limitation “collecting, by the one or more processors, the attributes data associated with the request upon receiving an approval for the release of the attributes data from the at least one user” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of collecting the release of the attributes data upon receiving an approval;
the limitation “packaging the collected attributes data into a structured data format, wherein the structured data format includes a JSON format” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of packaging the collected attributes in a data format including a JSON format;
the limitation “executing, at a point of sale terminal, a localized assessment of the attributes data to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network, the executing including cross- checking, by the one or more processors at the point of sale terminal, location data of the at least one device against the validation data collected during the one-time registration period, wherein the localized assessment is configured to operate under offline conditions through delayed transaction processing” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of performing a localized assessment of the attributes data, by cross-checking location data of the device against validation data, to approve or deny the request prior to initiating communication with a payment network;
the limitation “comparing, by the one or more processors, the attributes data to the validation data to determine a match for authenticating the service” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of comparing the attributes data to the validation data;
the limitation “generating, by the one or more processors, a presentation of a second user interface in the at least one device authenticating the request upon determining the match between the attributes data and the validation data” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of authenticating the request upon determining the match between the data;
the limitation “wherein collecting the validation data from the one or more devices comprises: storing, by the one or more processors, the validation data associated with the one or more users in a database, wherein the stored validation data is encrypted” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing the validation data in an encrypted form;
the limitation “wherein processing the at least one device to determine the attributes data comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, an interaction between the at least one device and a specialized computing device associated with a service provider, wherein the specialized computing device requests for the attributes data associated with the at least one user; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the collected attributes data to the specialized computing device” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining a user;
the limitation “wherein transmitting the collected attributes data to the specialized computing device comprises: generating a presentation of a third user interface in the at least one device associated with the at least one user, wherein the third user interface includes a notification for transmitting the attributes data to the specialized computing device, and wherein the attributes data is packaged into a data structure including an encoding format” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the encrypted attributes data to the service provider;
the limitation “wherein comparing the attributes data to the validation data to determine the match for authenticating the service further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors utilizing a fraud detection engine, whether the attributes data matches the validation data; and denying, by the one or more processors, the request upon determining discrepancy between the attributes data and the validation data” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of denying the request upon determining discrepancy between the data;
the limitation “wherein the at least one device stores a payment vehicle for obtaining the attributes data associated with the request” encompasses no more than merely invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing payment vehicle for obtaining the attributes data.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically. The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “database” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception. The additional element(s) of “from … device” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting. The additional element(s) of “…user interface in the at least one device” are generically recited to perform input/output steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the interface accomplish it. The examiner further noted generic computing devices, such as “at least one device associated with at least one user” and “specialized computing device associated with a service provider, are recited in place of the user and the service provider, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
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 element of using a processor to process transaction authentication to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent claim 23, 24, 26, 33, 34, 36 and 40 merely limit the abstract idea but do not recite any additional element beyond the cited abstract idea, thus, do not amount to significantly more. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 is conditionally withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 05/22/2026.
The examiner noted that claims 21, 31 and 38 include an unsupported limitation rejected under 35 USC 112(a) but is not disclosed or taught by the cited prior art. Should the limitation in question remove, the rejection under 35 USC 103 would be reinstated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the amended claims do not recite a Judicial Exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, even after amendment, remain to explicitly recite the processing of transaction, which is a Judicial Exception under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The applicant contended that because the claims recite “collecting device-generated validation and attribute data”, “packing that data into structured, machine-readable formats such as JSON” and “performing a localized, offline assessment at a point of sale terminal prior to any network”, the claims do not recite the Judicial Exception. However, it should be noted that the recitation of computing elements does not invalidate the positive recitation of the Judicial Exception. Moreover, collecting device-generated validation and attribute data still encompasses the collecting of validation and attribute data in a transaction, the formatting of transaction into a machine readable format encompasses the prepping of transaction data (filling an order) and localized assessment of a transaction is nonetheless an assessment of transaction. The claims remain to recite Judicial Exception of transaction authentication. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the amended claims integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner noted that the POS comparison of device location against validation data prior to sending transaction information to the payment network only adds an extra authentication or transaction approval step before the payment network perform a transaction authentication. As such, the local assessment is an aspect of the Judicial Exception, not technological. It should be noted that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the amended claims amount to significantly more, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintained that the inquiry of “well-known, routine and conventional” is not the sole inquiry in identifying inventive concept of a claimed invention. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Certain features in the claimed invention of the instant application similarly amounted to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. While the abstract idea being applied may be novel and non-obvious, the mere applying of the abstract idea to computer does not contain inventive concept. Since the mere instruction to apply the abstract idea contains no inventive concept, a “well-known, routine and convention” determination to the “apply it” feature logically would not result in the identification of unconventional step, nor would it be able to amount the claims to be significantly more than that of the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights