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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on October 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, and 19 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
3. 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.
4. 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;
determining, by a script corresponding to the payment provider and running in the web browser, whether the payment provider is supported by,…,;
responsive to determining that the payment provider is unsupported, providing, by the script running in the web browser,…,corresponding to the payment provider, transaction information corresponding to the transaction;
generating, by the script and on,…, a machine-readable code comprising at least the transaction information;
facilitating, by the script running in the web browser and based on the machine-readable code, establishing a communication channel,…,a digital wallet,…, configured to scan the machine-readable code, the digital wallet supporting the payment provider;
receiving, by the script running in the web browser,…, a payment credential of the digital wallet,…,; and
providing, by the script running in the web browser, the payment credential to the,…,to perform the transaction.
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,” 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 that the script is associated with an extension application of the web browser. 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 establishing a connection between the second server and digital wallet comprises (i.e., using a 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
5. 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;
determining, by a script corresponding to the payment provider and running in the web browser, whether the payment provider is supported by the first user device;
responsive to determining that the payment provider is unsupported, providing, by the script running in the web browser 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, establishing a communication channel between the second server and a digital wallet of a second user device, 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
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on October 24, 2025 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 “Therefore, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception.” (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. Specifically, 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 that In doing so, the claimed elements integrate the
purported abstract concept(s) into a practical application and are therefore patentable.” See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). 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 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.”
Applicant also argues that “claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than the purported abstract idea itself This is because they provide a reduction in the number of steps to complete a transaction when a payment provider is not supported on the first user device.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 12). 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,” 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. 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.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights