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forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated April 08, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 14-15 and 20 were previously cancelled. No new claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-13 and 16-19 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 1-13 and 16-19 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 1-13 and 16-19 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 1-13 and 16-19). 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 receiving a product selection and approving the transaction for purchase of said product by;
selecting the product or service to purchase by the consumer;
establishing a first wireless connection between…;
transmitting payment data from the,…,over the first wireless connection;
the,.., receiving electrical power wirelessly from the,…, over the first wireless connection to operate a,…;
relaying the payment data from the,…, and wherein the,…, acts as a proxy between the,…, for Internet Protocol (IP) traffic;
approving the purchase of the product or service by the,…,using the payment data;
transmitting an approval message from,…, wherein the approval message is encrypted and inaccessible by the,…,
relaying the approval message from the,…,over the first wireless connection; and
providing the product or service to the consumer based on the approval message being received by,....
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving a product selection and approving the transaction for purchase of said product).
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.
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,” “terminal,” and “network” 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, paragraphs [0014, 0016, and 0018] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-19 have been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the payment data is transmitted from the frontend terminal to the consumer device over the first wireless connection. Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the payment data is transmitted from the frontend terminal to the consumer device using IP over NFC. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the approval message is relayed from the consumer device to the frontend terminal over the first wireless connection using Internet Protocol (IP). Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the approval message is relayed from the consumer device to the frontend terminal using IP over NFC. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the consumer device is used as a proxy between the frontend terminal and the payment network for Internet Protocol (IP) traffic therebetween for relaying the payment data and the approval message. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the frontend terminal comprises a computer processor for processing the payment data, the frontend terminal being electrically unpowered by a wired connection or a battery to power the computer processor, and the frontend terminal receiving electrical power wirelessly from the consumer device to operate the computer processor. Dependent claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the frontend terminal is not independently connected to the internet. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the payment data is relayed from the consumer device to the payment network and the approval message is transmitted from the payment network to the consumer device over a second wireless connection. Dependent claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the second wireless connection is a cellular network. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the payment data is relayed and the approval message is transmitted between the consumer device and the payment network using Internet Protocol (IP). Dependent claim 12 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes payment data is relayed from the consumer device to a backend kernel, the backend kernel determining which of several payment networks the payment data is associated with, and the backend kernel redirecting the payment data to the payment network associated with the payment data. Dependent claim 13 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the backend kernel receives the approval message from the payment network associated with the payment data and transmits the approval message to the consumer device. Dependent claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the consumer device is a smartphone. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the payment data includes a credit or debit card number. Dependent claim 18 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that transmitting a credit or debit card number from the consumer device to the frontend terminal over the first wireless connection. Dependent claim 19 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes that the frontend terminal is incorporated into a vending device, the vending device providing the product or service to the consumer in response to the frontend terminal.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
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).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on June 23, 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 argues that “[w]hen read as a whole, the claims do not recite a fundamental economic practice, a commercial or legal interaction, or a mental process. The claims recite a specific technical architecture for routing payment data through a consumer device acting as a transparent proxy for a frontend terminal that lacks independent internet connectivity and independent electrical power. No human could perform these operations mentally. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a judicial exception, and the eligibility analysis should conclude at Step 2A, Prong One.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). However, the heart of this invention is tied to providing a product or service based on approval of the purchase by the consumer. The consumer must also “select” the product or service to purchase using this system. These claims most definitely recite an abstract idea. 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 next argues that “[e]ven assuming arguendo that the claims recite a judicial exception, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate any such exception into a practical application.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). 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)). This invention includes no interactive features that would integrate the above-mentioned abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that “[e]ven assuming arguendo that the above arguments under Step 2A fail, the claims recite an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” (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,” “terminal,” and “network” 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, paragraphs [0014, 0016, and 0018] of the specification). Using a consumer device to “bridge the connection between an offline, unpowered terminal and a remote payment network” is not a technological improvement. It is merely using a connected device to carry out a transaction as opposed to another device.
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