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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 12/12/2025. Applicant’s election of claims 34-50 and 53-61 is noted, and claims 34-50 and 53-61 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
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 34-50 and 53-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Claims 34-50 and 53-61 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 34-50 and 53-61 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 34 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A computing device comprising: a communications module; a processor; and at least one memory coupled to the processor, and storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive transaction information corresponding to a transaction, the transaction including one or more purchases and a disbursement, the transaction information including a plurality of receipt elements; send, to a transfer rail, the transaction information; generate, using the transaction information: a unique transaction identifier; generate a uniform resource locator (URL) which includes the unique transaction identifier; receive, from the transfer rail, a confirmation of a successful completion of a transfer card transaction corresponding to the transaction information; an send, to an NFC tag controller, an NFC data exchange format (NDEF) message comprising a string containing the URL as a payload, wherein the computing device is a Payment Card Industry (PCI) certified payment device.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device, processor/communications module, memory, transfer rail, NFC controller”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “a computing device, processor/communications module, memory, transfer rail, NFC controller”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 5 additional elements – “a computing device, processor/communications module, memory, transfer rail, NFC controller”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computing device, processor/communications module, memory, transfer rail, NFC controller” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “a computing device, processor/communications module, memory, transfer rail, NFC controller” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 34-36, 43, 46, 48-50, 53-54, 56, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025515 A1 to Argue (“Argue”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017947 A1 to Robinton (“Robinton”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.2021/0192490 A1 to Smets (“Smets”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 34, 53, and 61, Argue discloses the following limitations:
A computing device comprising: a communications module; a processor; and at least one memory coupled to the processor, and storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (see at least Argue Figure 1 and ¶ 0023)
receive transaction information corresponding to a transaction, the transaction including one or more purchases and a disbursement, the transaction information including a plurality of receipt elements; (see at least Argue Figures 2-3, ¶¶ 0005, 0028, 0041-0045)
send, to a transfer rail, the transaction information; (see at least Argue ¶ 0031, 0052-0054)
generate, using the transaction information: a unique transaction identifier; (see at least Argue ¶¶ 0008, 0031, 0036)
receive, from the transfer rail, a confirmation of a successful completion of a transfer card transaction corresponding to the transaction information; an (see at least Argue ¶ 0031, 0052-0054)
Argue does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
generate a uniform resource locator (URL) which includes the unique transaction identifier;
send, to an NFC tag controller, an NFC data exchange format (NDEF) message comprising a string containing the URL as a payload,
wherein the computing device is a Payment Card Industry (PCI) certified payment device.
The Examiner provides Smets to teach the following limitations:
generate a uniform resource locator (URL) which includes the unique transaction identifier; (Smets teaches a system and method of enabling device-device communication including making receipt data available to a user device via a sent URL. See at least ¶ 0103)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Smets since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Robinton to teach the following limitations:
send, to an NFC tag controller, an NFC data exchange format (NDEF) message comprising a string containing the URL as a payload, (Robinton discloses preparing and sending an NFC data exchange format message that includes a unique ID together with information to be shared with a user device. See at least Robinton ¶¶ 0059-0060)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Robinton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art that the industry standard for using any sort of payment cards is using PCI certified devices and following the PCI standards. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Official Notice in order to follow PCI compliance and accept major payment types as well as provide increased security and privacy controls on user data, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 35 and 54, Argue does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, prior to the sending, to the NFC tag controller, the URL:send, to the NFC controller, the confirmation of the successful completion of the transfer card transaction corresponding to the transaction information.
The Examiner provides Robinton to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, prior to the sending, to the NFC tag controller, the URL:send, to the NFC controller, the confirmation of the successful completion of the transfer card transaction corresponding to the transaction information. (Robinton teaches a system and method of utilizing a trusted tag to verify payment and providing receipt confirmation to the user device via the NFC interface. See at least Figures 7 and ¶¶ 0059-0060, 0113)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Robinton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 36, Argue discloses the following limitations:
wherein the URL further includes the at least some of the plurality of receipt elements including a transactor name, a transaction date, an identification of the one or more purchases, or a total disbursement amount. (see at least Argue ¶ 0043)
In regards to claim 43, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose the following limitations:
wherein the URL identifies a web resource corresponding to a receipt of the transaction, wherein the web resource links to a web page or an app page for accessing by a user device of a receipt of the transaction. (Smets teaches a system and method of enabling device-device communication including making receipt data available to a user device via a sent URL. See at least Smets ¶ 0103)
In regards to claim 46, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: the NFC tag controller, wherein the processor is configured to cause the NFC tag controller to: generate and emit, via the NFC tag controller, the NFC data exchange format (NDEF) message. (Robinton discloses preparing and sending an NFC data exchange format message that includes a unique ID together with information to be shared with a user device. See at least Robinton ¶¶ 0059-0060)
In regards to claim 48, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose using Pin entry devices (see at least Argue ¶ 0009, Smets ¶ 0094), the combination does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the computing device is a contactless PIN entry on Commercial off-the-shelf (CPoC) device, a software-based PIN entry on Commercial off-the-shelf device (SPoC), or a mobile payments on commercial-off-the- shelf devices (MPoC) device.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to use CPoC, SPoC and MPoC devices for use in PCI payment devices such as card readers, mobile devices etc, the Examiner provides SPOC and CPOC as evidence for the Official Notice.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Official Notice since using PCI certified devices in business transactions is crucial to protect sensitive payment data and to comply with industry standards, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 49, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose the following limitations:
wherein the sending the NDEF message includes sending the NDEF message to a user device; wherein the URL is accessible by the user device for the user device to display, in response to the accessing, a receipt of the transaction. (Smets teaches a system and method of enabling device-device communication including making receipt data available to a user device via a sent URL. See at least Smets ¶¶ 0072 and 0103)
In regards to claim 50, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose the following limitations:
wherein the receipt is displayable through a web page corresponding to the address, without requiring input of personal information or an execution by the user device of an application, the personal information including an email or a phone number. (Smets teaches a system and method of enabling device-device communication including making receipt data available to a user device via a sent URL. See at least Smets ¶¶ 0072 and 0103)
In regards to claim 56, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose the following limitations:
wherein the URL identifies a web resource corresponding to a receipt of the transaction, wherein the web resource links to a web page or an app page for accessing by a user device of a receipt of the transaction. (Smets teaches a system and method of enabling device-device communication including making receipt data available to a user device via a sent URL. See at least Smets ¶¶ 0072 and 0103)
Claim(s) 38-39 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025515 A1 to Argue (“Argue”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017947 A1 to Robinton (“Robinton”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.2021/0192490 A1 to Smets (“Smets”), in view of Official Notice, in view of United States Patent No. 10,482,466 B1 to Walters (“Walters”).
In regards to claims 38-39 and 57, Argue, Robinton, and Smets does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the unique transaction identifier is generated by using a hash function on the transaction information. wherein the transaction information includes a unique identifier of the computing device, and wherein the hash function is applied to the unique identifier.
The Examiner provides Walters to teach the following limitations:
wherein the unique transaction identifier is generated by using a hash function on the transaction information. wherein the transaction information includes a unique identifier of the computing device, and wherein the hash function is applied to the unique identifier. (Walters teaches a system and method of generating a unique ID based on applying a hash function to an ID, customer, transaction or other ID to generate a unique ID to associate a customer with the transaction data. See at least ¶ 0079)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Walters since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025515 A1 to Argue (“Argue”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017947 A1 to Robinton (“Robinton”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.2021/0192490 A1 to Smets (“Smets”), in view of Official Notice, in view of United States Patent No. 10,482,466 B1 to Walters (“Walters”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0297432 A1 to Petrov (“Petrov”)
In regards to claim 40, Argue, Robinton, Smets, and Walters discloses generating a unique ID is generated by applying a hash function to the ID, however, does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the computing device is a PIN Transaction Service Point of Interaction (PTS POI) device, wherein the transaction information includes a unique identifier of the PTS POI device, wherein the hash function is applied to the unique identifier.
The Examiner provides Petrov to teach the following limitations:
wherein the computing device is a PIN Transaction Service Point of Interaction (PTS POI) device, wherein the transaction information includes a unique identifier of the PTS POI device, wherein the hash function is applied to the unique identifier. (Petrov teaches using a secure PIN device for the performance of transactions. See at least ¶¶ 0016-0017)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Petrov since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025515 A1 to Argue (“Argue”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017947 A1 to Robinton (“Robinton”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.2021/0192490 A1 to Smets (“Smets”), in view of Official Notice, in view of United States Patent No. 10,482,466 B1 to Walters (“Walters”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,366,378 B1 to Han (“Han”)
In regards to claim 58, Argue, Robinton, and Smets does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the transaction information includes a unique identifier of the computing device, wherein the hash function is applied to the unique identifier,
wherein prior to the sending, to the transfer rail, the transaction information, the method further comprises: receiving transfer card data; and sending, to the transfer rail, the transfer card data.
The Examiner provides Walters to teach the following limitations:
wherein the transaction information includes a unique identifier of the computing device, wherein the hash function is applied to the unique identifier, (Walters teaches a system and method of generating a unique ID based on applying a hash function to an ID, customer, transaction or other ID to generate a unique ID to associate a customer with the transaction data. See at least ¶ 0079)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Walters since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Han to teach the following limitations:
wherein prior to the sending, to the transfer rail, the transaction information, the method further comprises: receiving transfer card data; and sending, to the transfer rail, the transfer card data. (Han teaches collecting payment card data to send to the transaction processor prior to issuing a receipt. See at least Figures 3A-3B, 10 and ¶ 0242)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Han since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 41-42, 44, 47, 55, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025515 A1 to Argue (“Argue”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017947 A1 to Robinton (“Robinton”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.2021/0192490 A1 to Smets (“Smets”), in view of Official Notice, in view of United States Patent No. 10,366,378 B1 to Han (“Han”)
In regards to claim 41, Argue, Robinton, and Smets does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, prior to the receiving a confirmation of a successful completion of a transfer card transaction: determine an absence of Internet connectivity at the computing device.
The Examiner provides Han to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, prior to the receiving a confirmation of a successful completion of a transfer card transaction: determine an absence of Internet connectivity at the computing device. (Han discloses a transaction device determining internet connectivity in order to process transactions in an offline mode. See at least Abstract and Figures 3A-3B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Han since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Furthermore, the Applicant is reminded that the expression “prior to the receiving a confirmation of a successful completion of a transfer card transaction: determine an absence of Internet connectivity at the computing device.” represent non-functional descriptive material since the recited characteristics of these limitations are not processed to carry out any positively recited steps or functions. As stated in MPEP 2111.05, where the claim is directed to "conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.” In the instant case, the indication that there is no internet connectivity is meant to convey a meaning to a human since the computer system as a whole does not utilize this information for further processing. Therefore, no patentable weight will be given to these limitations.
In regards to claims 42 and 55, Argue, Robinton, and Smets discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, send, via the communications module, to a server, the transaction information and the URL, wherein the URL identifies a web resource corresponding to a receipt of the transaction. (Smets teaches a system and method of enabling device-device communication including making receipt data available to a user device via a sent URL. See at least Smets ¶ 0103)
Argue, Robinton, and Smets do not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
prior to the receiving the confirmation of the successful completion of the transfer card transaction corresponding to the transaction information:
The Examiner provides Han to teach the following limitations:
prior to the receiving the confirmation of the successful completion of the transfer card transaction corresponding to the transaction information: (Han discloses a transaction device determining internet connectivity in order to process transactions in an offline mode. See at least Abstract and Figures 3A-3B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Han in order to provide receipt information for processing transactions in an offline mode, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 44, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose receiving payment card information, see previous citations, however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, prior to the sending, to the transfer rail, the transaction information: receive transfer card data; and send, to the transfer rail, the transfer card data.
The Examiner provides Han to teach the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further caused to, prior to the sending, to the transfer rail, the transaction information: receive transfer card data; and send, to the transfer rail, the transfer card data. (Han teaches collecting payment card data to send to the transaction processor prior to issuing a receipt. See at least Figures 3A-3B, 10 and ¶ 0242)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Han since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 47 and 60, Argue, Robinton, and Smets disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: an NFC tag reader; wherein the processor is further caused to, wherein the URL further includes a unique device identifier, wherein the unique device identifier is of the computing device. (Argue discloses using a unique ID to distinguish the computing device from other computing devices. see at least Argue ¶ 0041. Smets discloses generating the URL. See at least Smets ¶¶ 0072 and 0103)
Argue, Robinton, and Smets does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
prior to the generating the URL:receive, via the NFC tag reader, transfer card data; and send, to the transfer rail, the transfer card data,
The Examiner provides Han to teach the following limitations:
prior to the generating the URL:receive, via the NFC tag reader, transfer card data; and send, to the transfer rail, the transfer card data, (Han teaches collecting payment card data to send to the transaction processor prior to issuing a receipt. See at least Figures 3A-3B, 10 and ¶ 0242)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Argue the teachings of Han since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 45, and 59 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, including overcoming the current 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627