DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the Request for Reconsideration dated February 12, 2026.
2. Claims 1-9 were preliminarily amended on July 2, 2024.
3. Claims 1, 3, and 6-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
4. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9 have been amended.
5. Claims 2, and 4-5 have been canceled.
6. Claims 10-13 have been newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
7. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
8. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "[a] method for remotely taking control of a payment terminal, comprising the following steps:”
The preamble of the instant claim 8 recites “[a] payment terminal configured to allow a remote take-over of control of said payment terminal, comprising:
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for remotely taking control of a payment terminal” as recited in the preamble of Claim 1 and “to allow a remote take-over of control of said payment terminal” as recited in the preamble of Claim 8 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Further, the following italicized limitations are stating a purpose and/or intended use of the invention and accordingly are not being given further weight.
As in Claim 1 (and similarly, by reference in Claim 9):
at least one step of checking a presence, within a secure memory of said payment terminal, of at least one structure of data representative of restrictions to be applied to said take-over of control;
exchange of signalling data with a connection server to initialize a point-to-point connection between said remote terminal and the payment terminal, said exchange comprising:
As in Claim 8:
the dedicated application configured for an implementation of security measures restricting said take-over of control of the payment terminal, comprising deactivating, within said payment terminal, a reader of a payment device, the reader being a smart card reader, a magnetic strip card reader, an NFC reader, or a QR-code reader, such that the payment terminal cannot be used to implement a payment transaction during the take-over of control, and checking a presence, within a secure memory of said payment terminal, of at least one structure of data representative of restrictions to be applied to said take-over of control;
wherein, to initialize the point-to-point connection between said remote terminal and said payment terminal, the payment terminal is configured to exchange signalling data with a connection server to initialize a point-to-point connection between said remote terminal and said payment terminal, said exchange comprising:
an exchange of self-signed certificates seals between the dedicated application of the payment terminal and the remote terminal to establish trust between said payment terminal and said remote terminal during the point-to-point connection;
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.
9. Claims 1, 3 and 6-13 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.
The amendment filed February 12, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As in Claim 1 (and substantially similarly in Claim 8 and by reference in Claim 9):
a transmission of signalling data associated with said payment terminal to said connection server said payment terminal communicating with said connection server via a first communication link;
a receipt, from said connection server, of signalling data associated with a remote terminal for said take-over of control said remote terminal communicating with said connection server via a second communication link;
a negotiation of characteristics of the point-to-point connection via exchanges of Session Description Protocol offers and responses on the first and second communication links;
exchanges of self-signed certificate seals between the dedicated application of the payment terminal and the remote terminal to establish trust between said payment terminal and said remote terminal during the point-to-point connection”
There is no reference in the specification to a first or second communication link. Rather, the closest reference is to a C1 and C2 communication channel. (See Applicant Spec, page 11, last paragraph)
As to the exchange of self-signed certificate seals, the exchange occurs between the dedicated application started on the payment terminal and the web browser started on the remote terminal to establish trust between these two modules during the point-to-point session. (See Applicant Spec page 12, lines 25-28) This is not between the dedicated application of the payment terminal and the remote terminal, rather the specification makes clear that it is between the dedicated application of the payment terminal and the web browser of the remote terminal that exchanges are made, not the remote terminal itself.
Dependent Claims 3, 6-7 and 10-13 are further rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
10. Claims 1, 3, and 6-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites “remotely taking control of a payment terminal” in the preamble and then refers to “take-over of control” in the subsequent limitations. This leaves open the possibility that the take-over of control is facilitated by a human as opposed to by a remote terminal [not currently claimed]. Examiner recommends amending and clarifying, uniformly, that the take-over is remote being conducted by remote terminal within the bounds of the disclosure.
While Claim 1 is recited to be a method in the preamble, the steps are not being recited as active method steps as is generally seen in proper methods claims. By reciting some elements as having already happened, layered within other steps or occurring in a manner that may be being conducted outside of the method presented, there are clarity issues that needs to be resolved. Additionally, Examiner notes that there a number of issues with the recitations including mismatches, missing steps, unclear scope and clarity that must be addressed. Examiner has made every effort to flag every issue, however requests that Applicant closely review the entire claim set as well.
Further, Claim 1 and the rest of the claim set intermix the use of “said” and “the” in reference to the payment terminal, take-over of control, connection server, remote terminal and the trace file. Examiner recommends using “the” in reference to subsequent mentions of a claimed element to identify the same element at a subsequent juncture in the entire claim set.
In the second limitation as amended, seems to have a mixed scope that needs to be resolved. Applicant’s specification indicates that the proposed technique has a particular embodiment to deactivate at least one feature of the payment terminal and according to a particular characteristic, “all the means for obtaining information from any payment device (e.g., payment card, smartphone or connected watch equipped with payment features, etc.) are thus deactivated within the payment terminal. This includes for example deactivating the various reading means available in the payment terminal: smart card reader, magnetic stripe card reader, contactless NFC readers, QR-code reader, etc. Thus, the payment terminal cannot be used to implement a payment transaction it is remotely controlled.” (See Applicant Spec page 6, line 25 – page 7, line 3)
The claim limitation currently recites “at least a step of deactivation, within said payment terminal, of a reader of a payment device, the reader being a smart card reader, a magnetic strip [sic] card reader, an NFC reader, or a QR-code reader, such that the payment terminal cannot be used to implement a payment transaction during the take-over of control”.
As currently presented, the claim only requires one of the listed readers to be deactivated. This is a mismatch in scope with the second part of the limitation as only deactivating one reader does not result in a payment terminal that “cannot be used to implement a payment transaction during the take-over of control”. Applicant is requested to amend the language to clarify the scope of the claim. The manner of amendment undertaken should also extend to Claim 10 as to the reactivation step newly recited.
As amended, the third limitation has been added to the claim “at least one step of checking a presence, within a secure memory of said payment terminal, of at least one structure of data representative of restrictions to be applied to said take-over of control”. Here, the specification specifies that this at least one structure of data representative of restrictions to be applied is only once control of the payment terminal has become effective. (See Applicant Spec page 7, lines 4-7)
The step that is being conducted is checking the presence of the data structure that represents the restrictions to be applied (in the future), when control has become effective. The restrictions are not applied at this juncture, nor has a remote take-over of a payment terminal taken place.
The step being taken is to check to see if the at least one structure of data representative of restrictions exists on the payment terminal sought to be taken over. The result of a step checking for the presence of an item would be either the structure of data is within a secure memory of the payment terminal or it is not present. As this is a method claim and the step is presented effectively as a “whether or not” condition, the claim must also disclose what happens to the method if the structure of data is not present on the payment terminal sought to be taken over. This step is missing in the recitation.
Applicant’s specification does address what occurs if such a data structure is not detected [not claimed currently], namely, the method is interrupted immediately and the subsequent steps are not implemented, thereby prohibiting any remote take-over of control of the payment terminal. (See Applicant Spec page 7, lines 4-16) The specification goes on and further notes that once the security measures have been implemented (as claimed) and when the application of these measures has not identified the need to interrupt the method for remotely taking control, a phase INIT of initializing a session is implemented, namely the exchange of signalling data (as recited in the following limitation of the claim). This further indicates that the step missing in the recitation must be addressed in order for the method to progress.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "said remote terminal" in the fourth limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior recitation of a remote terminal in the claim.
Independent Claims 8 and 9 raise similar issues which are similarly rejected.
In further reference to Claim 8, this is a device claim, therefore steps are configured to be conducted, not actually conducted. The second limitation indicates “a dedicated application executed on the processing unit” which requires a step to actually be conducted in order for the device to function as claimed. The claim continues in this manner, reciting active steps instead of being configured to perform certain actions. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, it appears that the steps of the process have been amended out of order. The payment terminal will have to initialize the point to point connection before the media and control stream can be utilized. As currently recited, the connection is established before being initialized.
Dependent Claims 3, 6-7 and 10-13 are further rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
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.
11. Claims 1, 3, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 8 recites a device. Claim 9 recites a computer program product. Claim 9 is currently also subject to a separate rejection as being non-statutory (as shown below)
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of controlling a payment terminal. The idea is described by the following limitations:
implementation of security measures restricting a take-over of control, comprising at least a step of deactivation…cannot be used to implement a payment transaction during the take-over of control;
at least one step of checking a presence of data representative of restrictions to be applied to said take-over of control;
exchange of data comprising:
a transmission of data;
a receipt of data associated with a remote terminal;
a negotiation of characteristics via exchanges of offers and responses;
exchanges of data to establish trust;
at least one iteration of the following steps:
checking that an application associated is:
present in a white list of applications; or
absent from a black list of applications
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of controlling a payment terminal. The idea is described by the following limitations:
an implementation of security measures restricting a take-over of control, comprising deactivating…cannot be used to implement a payment transaction during the take-over of control, and checking a presence of data representative of restrictions to be applied to said take-over of control;
an exchange of data, said exchange comprising:
a transmission of data;
a receipt of data associated with and identifying a remote terminal;
a negotiation of characteristics via exchanges of offers and responses;
exchanges of data to establish trust;
check that an application associated is:
present in a white list of applications;
absent from a black list of applications
Claim 9 refers to the limitations of Claim 1 as to a computer program product and is abstract as to the same limitations noted above with reference to Claim 1.
The Applicant Specification indicates that the technique disclosed relates to a method for remotely taking control of a payment terminal, implemented by a software module executed within said payment terminal. The payment terminal comprises a software module for remotely taking control, which typically consists of a dedicated application installed on the payment terminal.
The abstract ideas recited describe certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve commercial interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) as noted above.
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a payment terminal; a dedicated application on a processing unit within the payment terminal; a reader of a payment device, the reader being a smart card reader, a magnetic strip reader, an NFC reader or a QR-code reader; a connection server; a remote terminal; at least one structure of data; a point-to-point connection between said remote terminal and said payment terminal; a first communication link, a second communication link; Session Description Protocol; self-signed certificates seals; said connection comprising at least: a media stream comprising one continuous video broadcast stream of information displayed on a screen of said payment terminal; and a control stream comprising one stream for the receipt of the at least one command from said remote terminal.
Claim 8 recites a payment terminal comprising a processing unit, a dedicated application executed on the processing unit, a secure memory and a communication interface; a reader of a payment device, the reader being a smart card reader, a magnetic strip card reader, an NFC reader, or a QR-code reader; at least one structure of data; a connection server; a remote terminal; a point-to-point connection between said remote terminal and said payment terminal, said connection comprising at least: a media stream comprising one continuous video broadcast stream of information displayed on a screen of said payment terminal; a control stream comprising one stream for the receipt of at least one command from said remote terminal; a first communication link; a second communication link; Session Description Protocol; and self-signed certificates seals.
Claim 9 recites the elements of Claim 1 and further recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a microprocessor, and comprising program code instructions.
In particular, the claims recite a payment terminal; a dedicated application on a processing unit within the payment terminal; a secure memory and a communication interface; a reader of a payment device, the reader being a smart card reader, a magnetic strip reader, an NFC reader or a QR-code reader; a connection server; a remote terminal; at least one structure of data; a point-to-point connection between said remote terminal and said payment terminal; a first communication link, a second communication link; Session Description Protocol; self-signed certificates seals; said connection comprising at least: a media stream comprising one continuous video broadcast stream of information displayed on a screen of said payment terminal; a control stream comprising one stream for the receipt of the at least one command from said remote terminal; a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a microprocessor and program code instructions which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 8-9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronically scanning or extracting data – which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“This techniques relates to a method for remotely taking control of a payment terminal. “Payment terminal” means in this case a traditional electronic payment terminal, in other words a dedicated device specifically designed to implement payment operations, but also any device provided with hardware and software means allowing it to be used instead of a traditional electronic payment terminal to implement payment operations, while complying with the same security requirements (such devices “similar” to a payment terminal include for example portable devices such as smartphones or tablets, comprising at least one secure element and cryptographic means adapted to implement applications processing sensitive or confidential data). This technique aims more precisely to allow a remote identified user, typically a technician or an expert belonging to a technical support department, to temporarily and remotely take control of such a payment terminal, in order for example to perform support operations (e.g., to help a merchant who is experiencing difficulties when using their terminal) as well as training, administration or maintenance operations. It is thus possible to reduce the number of interventions in the field and therefore limit the costs associated with such trips, while guaranteeing that these operations are processed as efficiently as possible since they are carried out by operators trained specifically for these tasks (and not by the merchants themselves). As demonstrated below, various types of protection are nevertheless provided within the framework of this technique, to ensure that the proposed method for remotely control (and the payment terminal configured to implement this method) comply with the rules and constraints applicable in the field of payment. The use of payment terminals is in fact subject to strict, mandatory and imposed security regulations. More particularly, these terminals must be certified compliant with various security standards, including for example, the Payment Card Industry (PCI) standards, such as for example the Payment Card Industry – PIN Transaction Security (PCI-PTS) standard, these standards defining security requirements concerning the physical design of the hardware as well as the software part implemented in these terminals. The method according to the proposed technique provides mechanisms for restricting remote take-over of control of a payment terminal, so that these standards continue to be respected.” (See Applicant Spec page 5, line 21 – page 6, line 16)
“This method for remotely taking control, shown referring to Figure 1 in a particular embodiment, is implemented by a dedicated software module (for example a dedicated application) executed in the payment terminal, for example by a secure processor.” (See Applicant Spec page 6, lines 17-19)
“These security measures comprise in particular, in a particular embodiment of the proposed technique, the deactivation (or blocking) at least one feature of the payment terminal. Such deactivations can be implemented using dedicated application programming interfaces (APIs), provided for example by the payment terminal operating system. According to a particular characteristic, all the means for obtaining information from any payment device (e.g., payment card, smartphone or connected watch equipped with payment features, etc.) are thus deactivated within the payment terminal. This includes for example deactivating the various reading means available in the payment terminal: smart card reader, magnetic stripe card reader, contactless NFC readers, QR-code reader, etc. Thus, the payment terminal cannot be used to implement a payment transaction when it is remotely controlled.” (See Applicant Spec page 6, line 25-page 7, line 3)
“These security measures also comprise, in a particular embodiment of the proposed technique, checking the presence, within the payment terminal, of at least one structure of data representative of restrictions to be applied when taking control of the payment terminal, once control has become effective. According to a particular characteristic, this data structure consists for example of a signed file, listing for example, amongst the applications installed on the payment terminal (or likely to be installed), those which are authorised to be executed during a remote take-over of control (case of a white list of applications) or, on the contrary, those which are not authorised to be executed during a remote take-over of control (case of a black list of applications). According to a particular characteristic, if absence of such a data structure in the payment terminal is detected, for example when starting the dedicated application for remotely taking control, the method is interrupted immediately. In this case, steps 11, 12 and 13 of initializing a session for remotely taking control, described below, are not implemented, thereby prohibiting any remote take-over of control of the payment terminal.” (See Applicant Spec page 7, line 4-line 16)
“In a step 12, the payment terminal receives, from the connection server and via the dedicated software module, signalling data associated with the potential remote terminal for take-over of control. Such a remote terminal is typically the workstation (e.g., a computer, tablet or smartphone) of a support department operator available to handle operations to be carried remotely on the payment terminal (technical support, training, maintenance, administration, etc.)” (See Applicant Spec page 8, lines 4-9)
“According to another aspect, the proposed technique also relates to a payment terminal, for which a simplified architecture is described referring to Figure 3, in a particular embodiment. Such an electronic payment terminal (TermE) comprises a memory 31, a processing unit 32 equipped for example with a microprocessor, and controlled by a computer program 33. The electronic terminal also comprises a secure memory 34, which can be merged with the memory 31 (as shown in dotted lines, in this case the memory 31 is a secure memory), a secure processing unit 35 equipped for example with a secure microprocessor and with physical protection measures (physical protection around the chip, by lattice, vias, etc. and protection on the data transmission interfaces), and controlled by a computer program 36 specifically dedicated to this secure processing unit 35, this computer program 36 implementing all or part of the method for remotely taking control as described previously. The group composed of the secure processing unit 35, the secure memory 34 and the dedicated computer program 36 forms the secure portion (PS) of the electronic terminal. In at least one embodiment, this technique is implemented as a set of programs installed partly or totally on this secure portion of the transaction processing terminal. In at least one other embodiment, this technique is implemented as a set of programs installed partly or totally on this secure portion of the transaction processing terminal. In at least one other embodiment, this technique is implemented as a dedicated component (CpX) capable of processing data of the processing units and installed partially or totally on the secure portion of the transaction processing terminal. In addition, the terminal also comprises communication means (CIE) consisting of example of network components (WiFi, 3G/4G/5G) allowing the terminal to receive data (i) from entities connected to one or more communication networks (for example a connection server, STUN and/or TURN servers, a remote terminal, etc.) and to transmit processed data (T) to such entities.” (See Applicant Spec page 13, line 22 to page 14, line 12)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 8-9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 3, 6-7 and 10-13 are further define the abstract idea that is presented in Independent Claim 1 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Dependent Claim 3 further discloses wherein said method is interrupted in an absence, within said payment terminal, of said at least one structure of data representative of restrictions to be applied to said take-over of control. As seen above, the at least one structure of data may be no more than a list. This is still comparing data. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 6 further discloses a step of logging said at least one command in a trace file stored in said payment terminal. The trace file is disclosed by the specification as a data structure (typically a database, or a trace file, also called log file). (See Applicant Spec page 11, lines 1-9) This is recording data, which still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 7 further discloses that said trace file is downloaded to a maintenance server, upon receipt of an item of data representative of an end of said remote take-over of control. This is a storing data step, where the maintenance server may be the connection server. (See Applicant Spec page 11, lines 17-20) This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 10 further discloses reactivating the reader when the take-over of control is ended. As described by the Applicant’s specification, when the remote control session is ended, the features of the payment terminal which had been deactivated are restored. (See Applicant Spec page 11, lines 10-17) There is no disclosure as to how the reader is unblocked and functional again. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Substantially similar dependent claims 11 and 13 further disclose wherein protocol stacks are used to manage the point-to-point connection, wherein the control stream is transported using a Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and is based on a Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol, and wherein the media stream is transported using a Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP) and is also based on the DTLS protocol.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 11 and 13, if integrated into the independent claims and with additional details regarding the WebRTC communication, confidentiality and authenticity of the SCTP and SRTP packets exchanged and how the encryption is carried out, may positively impact the 101 analysis.
Dependent Claim 12 further discloses after said step of the establishment of the point-to-point connection, received a command from the remote terminal to open a parameters menu of the payment terminal, access a device configuration of the payment terminal, modify the device configuration of the payment terminal, start a self-diagnosis of the payment terminal, or a screen shot of a display of the payment terminal. This is still receiving a command to perform a step and still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea .
Thus, Claims 1, 3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 9 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because in order to comply with §101, a computer program product claim must recite that the computer program product comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions (or code) embodied thereon and said instructions are configured to control a computer to perform specific functional steps. The claim must then recite the specific functional steps performed by execution of the instructions contained on the computer-readable medium by the computer, rather than reciting the code or software itself (i.e. software per se is not patentable). A computer program product, when properly claimed, describes the method steps performed when executed by a computer system, not the code or software itself.
Here, the computer program is now stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by a microprocessor and is noted to be “comprising program code instructions to execute the method according to claim 1 when executed by the microprocessor”. The program code instructions may or may not be embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable medium as currently recited – rather, a stored computer program product is executable by a microprocessor. It is unclear if the stored program product being executed by the microprocessor contains the method steps or if there is an intermediate step involved of executing the computer program product that in turn comprise program code instructions which are then used to execute the method when executed by the microprocessor. Clarification and correction is required.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Applied
Gonsalves et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0029216) (“Gonsalves”) – disclosing peer to peer remote control management between a helper and beneficiary mobile device. (See Gonsalves Abstract) A trust relationship is established between the helper and beneficiary mobile devices by performing mutual authentication. (See Gonsalves Abstract)
Mayer et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0155134) (“Mayer”) – disclosing a method for detecting a disconnection of a main connector of an electronic payment terminal. (See Mayer Abstract)
Bernardi (US Patent 11,100,197) – discloses Secure Real Time Communication Service for audio and video streaming communications and content sharing that securely connects multiple users using a “push-button” WebRTC chat app connection over a P2P network. (See Bernardi Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered as disclosed below.
As to the 112(f) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the corrections made to overcome the 112(f) issues. (See Applicant Arguments dated 02/12/2026, page 8) The 112(f) has accordingly been withdrawn.
As to the 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the corrections made. The previous rejections have been withdrawn. (Id.) However, new issues have arisen in response to the extensive amendments made, as seen in the rejection in chief, above.
As to the 101 Rejections:
Examiner acknowledges the arguments made regarding the 101 rejection and the traversal made. (Id. at pages 8-11) As currently recited, the initial steps are not being conducted, in the claims, in a manner that clearly excludes the human from performing some of the steps recited. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, for example, in Claim 1, the implementation of the dedicated application and deactivation of the reader may not be done remotely, but rather may be conducted by a user at the location of the payment terminal. Further still, as recited, as noted in the rejection in chief, it is not clear if all readers are mechanisms for payment are deactivated in the claims and the payment terminal actually cannot process payments. Similarly, the checking of the data to determine if there is a list of restrictions may be done by a human user at the payment terminal location.
There are numerous issues that have been raised under 112(a) and (b) as a result of the extensive amendments made. At the moment, the 101 rejection is maintained.
As to the 103 Rejections:
There is currently no prior art rejection being applied.
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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 March 22, 2026