DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated January 06, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 9, 12-14, 17-18, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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 sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-8), a machine (claims 9-16), and a manufacture (claims 17-20), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of providing payment details in order to facilitate a transaction by:
receiving a selection of a payment provider at a user interface of a merchant website on a web browser,…, the selection corresponding to a request to perform a transaction,…,associated with the merchant website using the payment provider, wherein the payment provider is not natively supported by the web browser on,….;
determining, by a script corresponding to the payment provider and running in,…, whether the payment provider is supported by,…, by execution of the script on the,…, to query one or more application programming interfaces;
responsive to determining that the payment provider is unsupported, providing, by the script running on the,…, and to a,…, corresponding to the payment provider, transaction information corresponding to the transaction,
receiving, from the,…, a session initiated for communications between the,…, and a,…;
generating, by the script running on,…, a machine-readable code at the,…, wherein the machine-readable code is scannable by the,…,and comprises at least (i) a session identifier associated with the session and (ii) the transaction information;
facilitating, by the script running on,…, and based on the machine-readable code, establishing of a communication channel,…,a digital wallet stored on the,…, and supporting the payment provider;
receiving, by the script running on,…, and from the,…, a payment credential of the digital wallet,…,; and
providing, by the script running on the,…, the payment credential of the digital wallet of the,… to the,…, to perform the transaction on behalf of the,…
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., providing payment details in order to facilitate a transaction).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claims 9 and 17 are nearly identical to claim 1. However, claim 9 includes several additional elements such as a “memory” and “processor” that are not found in claim 1. These elements are being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” “interface,” and “server” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0023] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2–8, 10-16 and 18-20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 10 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what kind of communication channel is being utilized. This is how the script is being implemented within a web browser. Dependent claims 3, 11, and 18 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the scenario in which the payment provider is supported, then forgoing the process of establishing a connection between the second server and the digital wallet. Dependent claims 4, 12, and 19 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the generating of code comprises (i.e., using a visible machine-readable code that is scanned by the second user device). Dependent claims 5, 13, and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe receiving user input of a login for an account associated with the second user device and also having a message sent to the second user device. Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the payment credential is encrypted. Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe modifying the transaction and transmitting this to the first server to notify of this modification. Dependent claims 8 and 16 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe receiving the result of the transaction and sending this result to the second server.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Jamkhedar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0020004) teaches a system for to perform payment operations by using a consumer digital wallet account of a user to pay for items sold by merchant. Although the invention in Jamkhedar describes the use of a payment credential, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
“receiving a selection of a payment provider at a user interface of a merchant website on a web browser on a first user device, the selection corresponding to a request to perform a transaction with a first server associated with the merchant website using the payment provider, wherein the payment provider is not natively supported by the web browser on the first user device;
determining, by a script corresponding to the payment provider and running on the first user device, whether the payment provider is supported by the first user device by execution of the script on the first user device to query one or more application programming interfaces;
responsive to determining that the payment provider is unsupported, providing, by the script running on the first user device and to a second server corresponding to the payment provider, transaction information corresponding to the transaction,
facilitating, by the script running in the web browser on the first user device and based on the machine-readable code, establishing of a communication channel between the second server and a digital wallet stored on the second user device and configured to scan the machine readable code, the digital wallet supporting the payment provider…
However, Jamkhedar does not teach that a determination is made that a payment provider is not supported by a particular device using a web browser and then using a script to then carry out the transaction using a different device.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “Thus, independent claim 1 recites a capability-dependent execution mechanism in which an executed script first determines whether a selected payment provider is supported by the browser runtime environment and, responsive to determining that the payment provider is unsupported, initiates a session and establishes a communication channel through which a provider-specific payment credential is obtained from a second device. Indeed, the Office Action acknowledges that Jamkhedar ‘does not teach that a determination is made that a payment provider is not supported by a particular device (e.g., the first device) and then using a script to then carry out the transaction using a different device.’ Office Action, page 7. This unsupported-platform detection and subsequent scripted cross-device execution flow is the focus of the claims and arises only in heterogeneous software execution environments in which runtime capability differs across client platforms.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). However, the heart of this invention is to perform a transaction. Although a payment credential is being used to carry out the transaction, this is done for the primary purpose to carry out a transaction. Thus, the claims do not merely involve a judicial exception. They most definitely recite one. The establishing of a connection based on a determination that a payment provider is unsupported is ancillary to the overall subject of this invention: to carry out a transaction. This is within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant argues “[e]ven assuming arguendo that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as relating to a transaction, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical technological application.” See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, generating a machine-readable code, establishing a communication channel, and receiving a payment credential do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, there are no interactive elements here which would result in the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application. This is merely data being exchanged in order to carry out a transaction using generic components such as a “device.” Merely using a user interface which isn’t even utilized according to currently amended claim does not integrate the abstract idea noted above into a practical application.
Applicant also argues that “[e]ven if the claims were deemed to recite a judicial exception, the ordered combination of elements recited in independent claim 1 as amended provides significantly more.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” “interface,” and “server” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0023] of the specification). Merely using machine-readable code and a payment credential to carry out a transaction is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM 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, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights