DETAILED ACTION
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
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received April 30, 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and examined.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
As to the double patenting rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is thereby withdrawn.
As to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the present claims do not fall under “commercial or legal interaction” and therefore is not a “certain method of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. The limitation “in response to determining the product, causing the client application to display an interface including a menu and a purchase function element, the menu comprising a list of product purchase options and an available balance for each product purchase option in the list of product purchase options” fall under a product purchase which is a “commercial or legal interaction”. Applicant also argues that the present claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The claims in the instant application include an abstract idea, and when considered as a whole, the claims (independent and dependent) do not integrate the exception into a practical application, and merely add the words “apply it” to the “the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. And simply relying on a computer to perform routine tasks or calculations more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding a computer-implemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed below with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of purchasing a product 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 a product, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware. The rejection is thereby maintained.
As to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hruska and Yuan, either taken alone or in proper combination, do not disclose, teach, or suggest “in response to determining the product, causing the client application to display an interface including a menu and a purchase function element, the menu comprising a list of product purchase options and an available balance for each product purchase option in the list of product purchase options” and “receiving a second user selection of the purchase function element and a first product purchase option of the list of product purchase options”. Examiner disagrees. Hruska teaches this limitation in ¶[0012] – “By selecting the Purchase button on the smart phone Mobile Wallet application the user requests to buy the displayed product that was scanned. A detailed confirmation page is presented to the buyer with the product description, the product amount, taxes and delivery charges, address to be delivered (which can be edited) and with a total amount. The buyer at this point has three options: 1) To Cancel the Order, 2) To Keep Shopping, 3) To Purchase the Product. The cancel option will cancel the order and the user will return to the main page of the Mobile Wallet application. The keep shopping option will keep the selected item in a queue on the Mobile Wallet backend. If during the session more items are scanned and confirmed to be purchased the final m-commerce shopping cart page of the Mobile Wallet system will be presented to the buyer at the end of the m-commerce session, providing a list of items that are being purchased with an itemized list of: product information, pricing and seller's information, product amounts, subtotals and totals including taxes and delivery charges and estimated delivery date. Once the user (buyer) selects the "Purchase" option, an editable delivery address is also displayed and needs to be confirmed. The Mobile Wallet backend will confirm the total amount of purchase and check the buyer's Mobile Wallet account to see if sufficient funds are present in their available balance. If not, the available balance will be shown and the itemized m-commerce shopping cart presented so items can be eliminated to the point where the total amount will be less than total purchase price.” The rejection is thereby maintained as detailed below.
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. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The method of claim 1, system of claim 9 and CRM of claim 17 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions of the business relation of purchasing a product. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Using the text of claim 9 as an example, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite:
9. A system comprising:
at least one processing circuit having a processor coupled to machine readable storage media having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the processor, cause the at least one processing circuit to:
receive an image from a mobile device based on receiving a first user selection of an image capture function element displayed via a client application on the mobile device and a subsequent capturing of the image by the mobile device, the image comprising a code;
determine a product associated with the code;
in response to determining the product, causing the client application to display an interface including a menu and a purchase function element, the menu comprising a list of product purchase options and an available balance for each product purchase option in the list of product purchase options;
receive a second user selection of the purchase function element and a first product purchase option of the list of product purchase options;
in response to receiving the first product purchase option, transfer a payment for the product to a merchant associated with the product from an account based on information associated with the merchant and the first product purchase option; and
cause the client application to display a purchase confirmation comprising order details including the product.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are considered as follows:
The “at least one processing circuit”, “processor”, “machine readable storage media”, “mobile device”, “image capture function”, and “client application”. Referring to MPEP 2106.05(f), the preceding recited additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, [0088]-[0091].
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional element in the dependent claims including the geolocation function (claims 2, 10, 18); and tokenized payment information (claims 6, 16), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hruska (US 2013/0262316) in view of Yuan (US 2014/0067564).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: (Hruska, Fig. 3a, [0005], procedure. Hruska does not specifically disclose the method is implemented by a computer. Yuan, Fig. 9, [0056], discusses a computer to perform the method. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the procedure of Hruska to include a computer performing the method of Yuan in order to implement the systems using computers as discussed in Yuan, [0057], and Hruska, [0004].)
receiving an image from a mobile device based on receiving a first user selection of an image capture function element displayed via a client application on the mobile device and a subsequent capturing of the image by the mobile device, the image comprising a code; (Hruska, Fig. 3a, [0011], application, smart phone, Scan and Buy)
determining a product associated with the code; (Hruska, Fig. 3a, [0011], product identifier)
in response to determining the product, causing the client application to display an interface including a menu and a purchase function element, the menu comprising a list of product purchase options and an available balance for each product purchase option in the list of product purchase options ( Hruska [0012] – “By selecting the Purchase button on the smart phone Mobile Wallet application the user requests to buy the displayed product that was scanned. A detailed confirmation page is presented to the buyer with the product description, the product amount, taxes and delivery charges, address to be delivered (which can be edited) and with a total amount. The buyer at this point has three options: 1) To Cancel the Order, 2) To Keep Shopping, 3) To Purchase the Product. The cancel option will cancel the order and the user will return to the main page of the Mobile Wallet application. The keep shopping option will keep the selected item in a queue on the Mobile Wallet backend. If during the session more items are scanned and confirmed to be purchased the final m-commerce shopping cart page of the Mobile Wallet system will be presented to the buyer at the end of the m-commerce session, providing a list of items that are being purchased with an itemized list of: product information, pricing and seller's information, product amounts, subtotals and totals including taxes and delivery charges and estimated delivery date. Once the user (buyer) selects the "Purchase" option, an editable delivery address is also displayed and needs to be confirmed. The Mobile Wallet backend will confirm the total amount of purchase and check the buyer's Mobile Wallet account to see if sufficient funds are present in their available balance. If not, the available balance will be shown and the itemized m-commerce shopping cart presented so items can be eliminated to the point where the total amount will be less than total purchase price.”);
receiving a second user selection of the purchase function element and a first product purchase option of the list of product purchase options; (Hruska, Fig. 3a, [0011], product information and product image displayed with purchase button)
in response to receiving the first product purchase option, transferring a payment for the product to a merchant associated with the product from an account based on information associated with the merchant and the first product purchase option; and (Hruska, Fig. 4, [0014], release funds to seller)
causing the client application to display a purchase confirmation comprising order details including the product and the first product purchase option. (0Hruska, Fig. 3a, [0012], detailed confirmation page presented to buyer)
Claims 9 and 17 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds. Regarding system claim 9 and CRM claim 17, Hruska, Fig. 2, [0004], does not disclose details of the system. Yuan, Fig. 9, [0056]-[0059], notes computer system 900 includes processor 902, memory 901 and machine-readable medium 922. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the system of Hruska to include the processor, memory, and machine readable medium of Yuan in order to implement the systems using computers as discussed in Yuan, [0057], and Hruska, [0004].
Claim 2 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a location of the mobile device via a geolocation function of the mobile device; and determining an available quantity of the product for sale within a predetermined distance of the location of the mobile device. (Hruska, Claim 1, discloses mobile device location. Hruska does not specifically disclose determining an available quantity of the product for sale within a predetermined distance of the location of the mobile device. Yuan, [0017], discusses determining shopper location using a mobile phone, selecting a distance for obtaining the items, and Yuan, [0020], discusses a quantity of a product being offered at a store within a threshold distance. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the location of Hruska to further include availability of a quantity of items within a threshold distance as in Yuan in order to enhance shopping as discussed in Yuan, [0013], and Hruska, [0012].)
Claims 10 and 18 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 3 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the code comprises at least one of a merchant identifier or a product identifier, and wherein the product identifier is configured to indicate an available quantity of the product. (Hruska, Fig. 1, [0009], product identifier, code, quantity. Hruska does not specifically disclose “available quantity”. Yuan, [0020], discusses a quantity of a product being offered at a store. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the product information of Hruska to further include a quantity of a product being offered as in Yuan in order to enhance shopping as discussed in Yuan, [0013], and Hruska, [0012].)
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 4 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: correlating the code with the product of the merchant based on the merchant identifier or the product identifier. (Hruska, Fig. 1, [0009], code is created using product identifier information)
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 5 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to transferring the payment, scheduling a shipment of the product from the merchant to an address associated with the account, the scheduling comprising sending the order details of the payment and shipping information to the merchant. (Hruska, Fig. 4, [0014], shipping; Claim 5, “shipping of the product by the first user to an address on file for the second user in order to consummate the purchase of the product”)
Claim 6 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein transferring the payment further comprises: retrieving payment information from the mobile device; converting the payment information into tokenized payment information; and providing the tokenized payment information to the merchant. (Hruska, Claim 5, transactional token)
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 7 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the code is unique for each individual product such that the code of the product is different than the code for other similar products. (Hruska, Fig. 1, [0009], unique product identifier)
Claim 8 recites:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: using a geolocation function of the mobile device to determine to a similar product for sale in a predefined distance of the mobile device. (Hruska, Claim 1, discloses mobile device location. Hruska does not specifically disclose using a geolocation function of the mobile device to determine to a similar product for sale in a predefined distance of the mobile device. Yuan, [0017], discusses determining shopper location using a mobile phone, selecting a distance for obtaining the items, Yuan, [0020], discusses a product being offered at a store within a threshold distance, and Yuan, [0022], discusses prompting a user whether brand X as opposed brand Y for a similar product may be preferred. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the location of Hruska to further include the threshold distance and alternate products as in Yuan in order to enhance shopping as discussed in Yuan, [0013], and Hruska, [0012].)
Claim 13 recites:
The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processing circuit to: in response to transferring the payment, schedule a shipment of the product from the merchant to an address associated with the account, the scheduling comprising sending the order details of the payment and shipping information to the merchant, wherein the order details further comprise a product purchase price, and wherein the shipping information comprises the address. (Hruska, Fig. 4, [0014], listed item, total amount, shipping; Claim 5, “shipping of the product by the first user to an address on file for the second user in order to consummate the purchase of the product”)
Claim 14 recites:
The system of claim 13, wherein sending the purchase confirmation further comprises sending the shipping information. (Hruska, Fig. 4, [0014], shipping)
Claim 15 recites:
The system of claim 9, wherein the code is a quick response (QR) code. (Hruska, Fig. 1, [0009], QR code)
Claim 19 recites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: in response to transferring the payment, scheduling a shipment of the product from the merchant to an address associated with the account. (Hruska, Fig. 4, [0014], transaction has completed, shipping; Claim 5, transfer funds, shipping)
Claim 20 recites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the code comprises at least one of a merchant identifier or a product identifier, wherein the product identifier is configured to indicate an available quantity of the product, and (Hruska, Fig. 1, [0009], product identifier, code, quantity. Hruska does not specifically disclose “available quantity”. Yuan, [0020], discusses a quantity of a product being offered at a store. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the product identifier of Hruska to further include availability of a quantity of items as in Yuan in order to enhance shopping as discussed in Yuan, [0013], and Hruska, [0012].)
wherein sending the purchase confirmation further comprises sending shipping information. (Hruska, Fig. 4, [0014], shipping)
Conclusion
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 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 IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-273-3955. 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.
/IRENE KANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
9/17/2026
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights