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 reply filed on 05/11/2026.
Claims 17-20 are previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 14 16, and 21-24 are amended.
Claims 1-16, and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 10 rejection starting on page 8 of the response.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically “amended claim 1 recites that short-range wireless communications" is used to transmit "a notification having the webpage address embedded in the notification to the mobile device of the user, wherein the notification causes a browser application on the mobile device to navigate to the webpage." And “the notification data via the webpage without requiring the user to input a contact identifier to the merchant device, wherein the notification data is accessible via a navigation to the webpage address without the merchant device receiving an identifier of the mobile device or the user." (Response at 9 - 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claimed technological improvement amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception to a computer environment. Specifically “use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) of claims 22-24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 of claims 1-19, 21-24 has been withdrawn.
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 1-16, and 21-24 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, 9 and 21 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Claim 1 recites “purchasing and tracking orders” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a “purchasing and tracking orders”
receiving an indication that a transaction was processed at a merchant device between a user and a merchant, wherein the transaction includes an order for the merchant to fulfill for the user, and wherein the indication includes a transaction identifier usable to track a status of whether the transaction has been fulfilled;
generating notification data for the transaction that tracks the status using the transaction identifier, wherein the notification data is displayable via at least one of an application interface or a webpage;
generating the webpage and a webpage address for the webpage based on the notification data, wherein the webpage includes information associated with the transaction and the status accessible via the webpage address;
transmitting, via short-range wireless communications, a notification having the webpage address embedded in the notification to a mobile device of the user, wherein the notification causes a browser application on the mobile device to navigate to the webpage;
providing the notification data via the webpage without requiring the user to input a contact identifier to the merchant device, wherein the notification data is accessible via a navigation to the webpage address without the merchant device receiving an identifier of the mobile device or the user;
receiving, from the merchant device, an update to the status of the transaction based on the transaction identifier; and
updating the notification data provided via the notification based on the update.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “… device…”, “…displayable via at least one of an application interface or a webpage”, “ generating the webpage and a webpage address for the webpage based on the notification data, wherein the webpage includes information associated with the transaction and the status accessible via the webpage address”, “transmitting, via short-range wireless communications, a notification having the webpage address embedded in the notification to a mobile device of the user, wherein the notification causes a browser application on the mobile device to navigate to the webpage”, “providing the notification data via the webpage without requiring the user to input a contact identifier to the merchant device, wherein the notification data is accessible via a navigation to the webpage address without the merchant device receiving an identifier of the mobile device or the user”, “receiving, from the merchant device, an update to the status of the transaction based on the transaction identifier”, “updating the notification data provided via the notification based on the update.” 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 purchasing and tracking orders.
Independent claims 9 and 21 recite similar limitations as independent claim 1. Hence, claims 1, 9 and 21 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 and 22 recites the additional elements of “hosting the webpage over a network for access using the webpage address.” Which 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 and does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 3 and 23 recites the additional elements of “transmitting, to the merchant device, code having the webpage address embedded in the code.” 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.
Claims 4 and 24 recites the additional elements of “wherein the code comprises at least one of a near field communication (NFC) data token comprising an executable command that loads the webpage using the webpage address without requiring a message file attachment or a quick response (QR) code that includes displayable encoded data for the webpage address.” 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 5 recites “wherein the indication further comprises loyalty data for the user from a digital wallet on the mobile device of the user, wherein the loyalty data is received with a payment from the digital wallet for the transaction, and wherein the loyalty data is linked to at least the status for tracking on behalf of the user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “determining an identifier associated with the user based on the loyalty data, wherein the notification is transmitted to the mobile device using the identifier.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “wherein the identifier is associated with an account of the user accessible via a mobile application on the mobile device, and wherein the notification comprises an in-application notification published in the mobile application using the identifier.” 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 8 recites “wherein the order is for a good or a service that requires fulfillment at a merchant location of the merchant where the transaction takes place, and wherein the update to the status includes at least one of a prepared order number or order retrieval instructions provided via the notification data based on the updated notification data.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the account data is received from the merchant … when processing the transaction based on a payment instrument provided by the … to the merchant ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…system… mobile 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. 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 11 recites “wherein the payment instrument comprises a … wallet token or a payment card token from a … wallet on the …, and wherein the account data is tokenized or encrypted when transferred to the merchant system with the …wallet token or the payment card token.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…digital… mobile device… system…” 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 12 recites the additional elements of “generating one of application interface data for the application interface or webpage data for the webpage based on the transaction and the first status.” 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 the additional elements of “wherein the notification data is transmitted to the user via the account using a push notification to the application when the application is logged in to the account.” 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 14 recites the additional elements of “wherein the notification data is transmitted over a network to the mobile device separately from merchant system, and wherein the merchant system is prevented from receiving an identifier associated with the user or the account when transmitting the notification 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. 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 15 recites “the additional elements of “wherein the at least one subsequent status comprises a second status indicating the fulfillment of the transaction is completed and instructions for receiving one or more items and/or one or more services for the transaction.” 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 16 recites the additional elements of “wherein the merchant system comprises one of a standalone payment terminal in communication with the system over a network or a merchant point of sale (POS) device and a connectable payment terminal in communication with the merchant POS 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. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior art Rejection
After further search and consideration the prior art rejection is withdrawn. Regarding claim 1 the prior art does not teach “generating the webpage and a webpage address for the webpage based on the notification data, wherein the webpage includes information associated with the transaction and the status accessible via the webpage address; transmitting, via short-range wireless communications, a notification having the webpage address embedded in the notification to a mobile device of the user, wherein the notification causes a browser application on the mobile device to navigate to the webpage; providing the notification data via the webpage without requiring the user to input a contact identifier to the merchant device, wherein the notification data is accessible via a navigation to the webpage address without the merchant device receiving an identifier of the mobile device or the user.”
Prior art of record not relied upon
Wetz (US 2021/0350424 A1) Teaches: consumer tracking system.
Blackhurst (US 2015/0032642 A1) Teaches: Use of re-encrypted to verify ownership and service.
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
September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights