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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1-11 are currently amended.
Claims 12 and 13 are newly added.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 cannot describe an abstract concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims describe a transaction which is a fundamental economic practice and represent a certain method of human activity.
Applicant further argues the amended claims “solv[e] problems associated with conventional methods and enabling merchants to receive DPP payments without having a digital payment account." (response at 9) and “The claimed system and method solve problems associated with the conventional techniques that involve incompatible integration of digital payment platforms (DPP) with credit card payment architecture (payment network) since the conventional payment systems involved communication with only systems that had established accounts for the merchant.” (Id. at 11) Applicant further argues “the claimed invention provides a system bridging the DPP systems and the payment network systems to provide an option to merchants that do not have a DDP account to perform payment. The claimed invention involves a second device such a POS system that provides an efficient solution to the problem of routing of payment network payments and DPP payments to proper endpoints. Therefore, the overall payment processing is improved and accelerated.” (Id. at 12)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, allowing merchants to receive payments or provide an option to perform payments amount to an improvement to abstract subject matter of fundamental economic practice and therefore the argues improvement is abstract.
Applicant further argues example 35 starting on page 12 of the response.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims fall short of example 35, specifically claim 2. In claim 2 of example 35 the claims include the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data. In contract claim 1 includes generating the time based unique code, verifying the code in relation to second information and executing the exchange. The present claim do not differ from the routine and conventions sequence like claim 2 of example 35, but instead add the generated time based code to the conventional sequence.
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 are not persuasive.
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 1-13 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 1 and 7 are directed to a system, and method.
Claim 7 also recites the abstract idea of “making a payment” which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices”. The Abstract ideas are in bold below.
Claim 7 recites:
communicating, via a first device, with a second device, wherein
the second device is remote from the first device;
sending and receiving, via the first device, first information regarding the communication between the first device and the second device, wherein the communication relates to an exchange involving the first device;
receiving, by one or more processors of the second device, the first information from the first device;
generating a transaction request, based on the first information received from the first device and transaction information;
determining user account information associated with a user account on a Digital Payment Platform (DPP), wherein the user account information is associated with the generated transaction request, and
the DPP is different from the second device:
generating a time-based unique card number for the first device based on the determining of the user account information, the first information, and the communication between the first device and the second device, wherein the time-based unique card number is unique for a predetermined timeframe and uses the DPP as a funding source;
verifying the time-based unique card number for the first device by determining a match between the generated time-based unique card number and second information received from a payment network; and
sending the verified time-based unique card number to the payment network for an execution of the exchange between the first device and the second device, wherein the payment network is separate from the DPP.
The additional elements of claim 7 such as “communicating, via a first device, with a second device, wherein the second device is remote from the first device”, “sending and receiving, via the first device, first information regarding the communication between the first device and the second device, wherein the communication relates to an exchange involving the first device”, “receiving, by one or more processors of the second device, the first information from the first device”, “…digital payment platform (DPP)…”, “ …network…”, and “first device and the second device, wherein the payment network is separate from the DPP.” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of making a payment.
Hence, claims 1 and 7 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 8 recite the additional elements of “wherein the first device comprises a cellular phone the second device comprises a terminal, and the cellular phone is configured to send and receive the first information at a same time.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the additional elements of “wherein the cellular phone is sized to fit in a pocket of the user associated with the first device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 4 and 10 recite the additional elements of “wherein the cellular phone is further configured to interface with an acquirer system, and the acquirer system is associated with the second device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 5 and 11 recite the additional elements of “wherein the cellular phone is further configured to store data.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of “wherein the cellular phone is further configured to interface with an acquirer system, and the acquirer system is separate from the second device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claim 12 recites “query the DPP to determine whether the user account has sufficient funds for the generated transaction request; and generate, based on the determination that the user account has the sufficient funds, the time-based unique card number.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “DPP” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the verification of the time-based unique card number includes a determination that the first information is received within an active time window associated with the time-based unique card number.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Prior Art made of Record not Currently Applied
Barman (US 2017/0256007 A1), teaches a test payment system ere payments are made vie a mobile phone.
Allen (US 2001/0025271 A1), Teaches conducting transactions over a network, including with a mobile phone.
Kalgi (US 2013/0013499 A1). Teaches using a mobile phone to preform transactions
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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 25, 2026