DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/09/2025.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16 and 17 are amended.
Claims 19 and 20 are new.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Note: Applicant is limited to a single invention per Application. The independent claims recite multiple different invention content.
Double Patenting
A terminal disclaimer was filed 12/09/25.
101
Applicant argues “The claimed subject matter relates to the generation and transmission of near-field wireless communication signals. As indicated in the background of the present application, receipts associated with transactions may be printed receipts. One problem in this respect is that it can be difficult to efficiently manage paper receipts. Another problem is that there is a risk of personal information leakage using paper receipts. Existing approaches to eliminate the use of paper receipts, for example, by distributing electronic receipts using software applications installed on a user device still suffer from challenges associated with leakage of personal information. For example, users may be required to input an email address or a phone number or another piece of identifying information to log in to an account to retrieve the electronic receipt. As explained in greater detail below, the presently submitted claims are directed to a solution to these problems. Therefore, the Applicant submits that the present claims are patent- eligible… Also, with respect to the server 300, the address (URL) is guaranteed to be checked only by one user device 400, that is, one user. Therefore, when another user tries to access the same address, the address is no longer functional, and thus personal privacy and security may be maintained. (Emphasis added). The amended independent claims reflect these technical improvements.” Examiner disagrees.
Applicant has not only described a business process abstract idea, but also the automation of providing a receipt to a user, but now the receipt is sent as a message. Applicant’s arguments do not claim the invention of and NFC signal/message, just the use of it. The message is sent to the user’s email. It is not a technological improvement that that user is then the “only one” to receive the link. Applicant claims use of other novel technologies in the receipt and sending of data and ultimately recite a business process, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) (II). The rejection is maintained.
112
Applicant argues “While the Applicant respectfully disagrees, claims 1 and 14 have been amended as shown to recite sufficient structure. The Applicant therefore requests that the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) be removed… With respect to the "address generator" of claims 1 and 14, amended claims 1 and 14 have been further amended to clarify the address generator is ‘configured to execute machine- readable instructions stored in the memory to...’”. Examiner disagrees.
The amendments and Applicant’s arguments do not show evidence of sufficient structure to perform the recited function that the “address generator” is claimed to be capable of, software execute instructions stored in memory. The claims are still unclear on what structural element the “Address generator” is to perform the functions claimed. The amendments state “an address generator configured to execute machine-readable instructions stored in the memory to generate a unique transaction identifier based on the transaction information, and generate a web identifier including the unique transaction identifier.” It is unclear where how this shows evidence of the sufficient structure. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claims 1 and 14 recite “an address generator configured to execute machine-readable instructions stored in the memory to generate a unique transaction identifier…” .
According to the disclosure (Pg 6, line 23-31), “The address generator 260 generates a unique address in correspondence to received transaction information. Here, an address refers to a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for accessing a web site or a web page on the Internet, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. The address generator 260 generates a unique address by including a unique identifier corresponding to transaction information in an address.”
There does not appear to be a structural element for what an “address generator” is but the claims recites the “address generator” performing functions of the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1, and 14 are directed to a machine, claim 7 is directed to an article of manufacture and claim 8 is directed to method.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving transaction information… generating an address … transmitting … information … and generating and emitting, using an NFC tag controller, a near-field wireless communication signal comprising a near-field communication (NFC) data exchange format (NDEF) message ….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, fundamental economic principles, for example, generating a message/receipt about a transaction that includes transaction information. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“generating and emitting, using an NFC tag controller, a near-field wireless communication signal comprising a near-field communication (NFC) data exchange format (NDEF) message…” is not an additional element.
According to the disclosure(Pg 7, line 11-21), “The NFC tag controller 270 generates a message corresponding to an address and emits the message as a near-field wireless communication signal by controlling an NFC tag. According to an embodiment, a message may be in a particular format used for near-field wireless communication. Here, the particular format refers to a format that enables the user device 400 receiving a corresponding message to immediately perform a predetermined action. For example, the NFC tag controller 270 generates and emits an NFC Data Exchange Format (NDEF) message. An NDEF message includes information to be transmitted to the user device 400. Here, as a payload, an address is included in the NDEF message.” The limitation is directed at generating and sending a message, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of a generic device and therefore, no an additional element.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving transaction information… generating an address … transmitting … information … and generating and emitting, … message” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a fundamental economic practice in transaction receipts as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-6, 11-13, and 15-20 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Dependent claim 10 discusses functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 15-20 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, and 14-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 limitation “an address generator configured to execute machine-readable instructions stored in the memory to generate…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. claims 1 and 14 recite “an address generator configured to: generate a unique transaction identifier from the transaction information, and generate an address including the unique transaction identifier, wherein the address is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)” .
According to the disclosure (Pg 6, line 23-31), “The address generator 260 generates a unique address in correspondence to received transaction information. Here, an address refers to a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for accessing a web site or a web page on the Internet, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. The address generator 260 generates a unique address by including a unique identifier corresponding to transaction information in an address.”
There does not appear to be a structural element for what an “address generator” is but the claims recites the “address generator” performing functions of the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 15-20 are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (US 2015/0025986) teaches electronic receipt generation.
Belanger et al (US 11,157,954) teaches NFC communication and NFC data exchange format(NDEF)
EPO(8/29/25) unentered IDS applications – US 20130112743 – potential 102
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699