DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 07/16/2026 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 18/862654 filed 07/16/2026.
Claims 1-17 have been examined with this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/16/2026 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of verifying payment validity 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. 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), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claims 5 and 9 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a machine (terminal / device). As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method for verifying payment validity executed by a wireless device comprising:producing a Public-Private key pair by a crypto wallet; generating a payment token that includes a public key of said Public-Private key pair and customer identifying information; transmitting said payment token to a payment terminal at a point of sale; wherein said payment terminal is configured to generate a payment request that includes a transaction information message of a payment and the payment token and to transmit thereafter the payment request to an at least one backend platform; generating a transaction verification message by said at least one back-end platform based on said transaction information message; providing the transaction verification message from said at least one back-end platform over a communication network to said wireless device associated with said public key of said payment token, bypassing said payment terminal; signing said transaction verification message with a private key of said public-private key pair and sending the signed transaction verification message to said at least one back-end platform; verifying ownership of said public key by comparing a public key of the transaction verification message signed by said wireless device against said public key included in the payment request message generated by said payment terminal, by the at least one back-end platform; approving said payment with a customer platform of an at least one financing entity; informing any of said payment terminal, wireless device, and said customer platform of payment verification result by said at least one back-end platform by sending a transaction confirmation message from said at least one back-end platform”.
Claim 5 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A payment terminal comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising program instructions for verifying payment validity, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors cause the payment terminal to: receive a payment token issued by a software development kit (SDK) located at a wireless device, wherein the payment token includes a public key of a pair of Public-Private keys produced by a crypto wallet; generate a payment request that includes a transaction information message and said payment token, and transmit said payment request to an at least one back-end platform; and receive a payment and a transaction confirmation message from said at least one back-end platform based on a payment approval generated by said at least one back-end platform; wherein verifying ownership of said public key is done by said at least one back-end platform based on said at least one back-end platform providing a transaction verification message over a communication network to said wireless device bypassing said payment terminal, and a subsequent comparison of the public key of the transaction verification message signed by a private key of the Public-Private key pair in the wireless device and the public key included in the payment request generated by said payment terminal”.
Claim 9 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A wireless device comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media having installed an application comprising program instructions for verifying payment validity wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors results in: producing a Public-Private key pair by a crypto wallet; generating a payment token comprising a public key of said Public-Private key pair and consumer identifying information; transmitting said payment token to a payment terminal of said point of sale; receiving a transaction information message from said payment terminal; receiving a transaction verification message over a communication network directly from said at least one backend platform, bypassing said payment terminal; based on comparison of a transaction information message received from said payment terminal and said transaction verification message generated by said at least one back-end platform, signing said transaction verification message with a private key of said public-private key pair, and sending said signed transaction verification message from said wireless device to said at least one back-end platform; and receiving a transaction confirmation after verifying ownership of said public key based on comparison of the public key of the signed transaction verification message and said payment token by said at least one backend platform”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Verifying payment validity is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a wireless device; producing a Public-Private key pair; transmitting; payment terminal; backend platform; generating a transaction verification message; a device; one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media; one or more processors; a software development kit (SDK) located at a wireless device; bypassing said payment terminal. However, the specification description of the additional elements a wireless device ([Figure 1, element 100] [0095]); producing a Public-Private key pair ([0088]); transmitting ([0063] [0122] [0124] [0134]); payment terminal ([Figure 1, element 120] [0074]); backend platform ([Figure 1, element 120] [0074]); generating a transaction verification message ([0094-0102]); a device ([Figure 1, element 100] [0095]); one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media ([Figure 5, element 510] [0126]); one or more processors ([0037] [0071]); a software development kit (SDK) located at a wireless device (([Figure 1, element 105] [0043] [0071]); bypassing said payment terminal ([0016] Note that the specification only infers that one embodiment does not send a transaction verification message to the payment terminal. Paragraph [0012] in another embodiment where “informing said payment terminal, wireless device, and said customer platform of payment verification result by said at least one back-end platform sending a transaction confirmation message from said at least one back-end platform”) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10-17 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 6, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
receive said payment token via an at least one of: a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) communication, a short-range radio communication and a Near Field Communication (NFC) (claim 6).
However, the specification description of the additional elements receive said payment token via an at least one of: a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) communication, a short-range radio communication and a Near Field Communication (NFC) ([0009] [0040] [0043] [0067] [0071] [0074] [0086] [0088]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. The closest prior art is Lee (PGPub Document No. 20160125402). However, the invention in Lee does not teach producing a Public-Private key pair by a crypto wallet (Lee discloses that the Public key is transmitted to the wallet by the payment device which is used by the mobile device to generated the payment token); signing said transaction verification message with a private key of said public-private key pair and sending the signed transaction verification message to said at least one back-end platform (Lee discloses that the Private keys is transmitted to the payment server as part of the payment token and not as part of signed transaction verification message); verifying ownership of said first public key by comparing a public key of the transaction verification message signed by said wireless device against said public key included in the payment request message generated by said payment terminal, by the at least one back-end platform (Lee discloses that the payment server verifies a digital signature but the public key verification is part of the initial the payment request data). Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. There is no described architecture which improves a technology or the underlying system. The claim limitation “bypassing said payment terminal” is only inferred in the specification (i.e. paragraph [0016]). However, Paragraph [0012] in another embodiment where “informing said payment terminal, wireless device, and said customer platform of payment verification result by said at least one back-end platform sending a transaction confirmation message from said at least one back-end platform”. Thus, decision to inform said payment terminal, wireless device, and said customer platform of payment verification or only a wireless device appears to be a matter of design choice within the claims and not a technical improvement based on architecture. Thus, unlike BASCOM which made an improvement to a technology, the present application merely apply a technological environment to implement the abstract idea of the claims. Thus, BASCOM is readily distinguishable from the present claims. As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited items A-E submitted 03/05/2026 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 03/05/2026.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
09/30/2026
