DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claim 8. No claims have been added. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 have been canceled. Thus, claims 8-14 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 20 March 2026 with respect to rejection of claim 8 under U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered. Amendments to claim have been entered.
In as much as the claim have been broadened by removing an improvement to technology – i.e. the use of the artificial intelligence model - claim amendments have necessitated the addition of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.as recited herein.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application filed on 16 April 2024 is given priority from 16 April 2024.
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 8-14 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.
In the instant case, claims 8-14 are directed to an “apparatus” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of transferring of funds between the customer and the vendor which is grouped under fundamental business practice of commercial interactions.
in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]). Claims recite:
receive a customer selection including a value of funds; and
create a transaction payload including the value of funds;
access a data log …;
identify metadata of a most recent transaction in the data log;
retrieve, from the metadata, customer account information; and
use the customer account information and the transaction payload;
initiate a transaction with the vendor without using an internet connection:
receive from the vendor scanning device a payment amount to be transmitted to the vendor, the payment amount being a portion of the value of funds;
update the transaction payload included in the QR code based on the payment amount, the update configured to set aside the portion of the value of funds from the value of funds; and
insert the encrypted data packet into an offline transaction queue; and
receive the encrypted data packet; and
use the data stored in the data packet to execute a transfer of funds between the customer and the vendor corresponding to the payment amount
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as:
an entity-operated application configured to execute on a processor of a customer device, without using an internet connection
a vendor scanning device via a local connection
to generate a quick response ("QR") code
connect to a vendor scanning device via a local connection;
generate an encrypted data packet that stores the extracted data;
display the QR code;
the vendor scanning device further including photosensitive sensor, the vendor scanning device configured to:
scan the QR code using the photosensitive sensor;
transmit the QR code to a central vendor platform;
the central vendor platform including a processor and a memory location,
extract data from the QR code including customer information, transaction information and the payment amount; and
transmit the encrypted data packet to an entity-operated platform when an internet connection is established; and
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than applying functions computer that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Such functions include generating encrypted data packets which is a generic computer function used in securely transmitting data. Generating, scanning and displaying a quick response ("QR") codes are routine and conventional processes used for analyzing data. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of transferring of funds using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 8-14 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 8-14 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of transferring of funds.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the fundamental business practice in the independent claim.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Babcock et al: “QR CODE INITIATIVE: FRAUD DETECTION”, (US Pub. No. 20220147970 A1).
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 EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm 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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692