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
Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
In the office action dated 2/13/26, the examiner rejected claims 1-10 and 13 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (20230281598) in view of La (20220148340). In response, the applicant substantially narrowed down the claim scope in the amendments dated 6/10/26.
Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 6 now recite the limitations of the QR code includes a store-specific value and order number information, the QR code-based open bill generated includes a dynamic authentication value of a service provider such that service provider information is displayed on the payer terminal, and after confirming the displayed of service provider information, the payer inputs payment information to request payment gateway (PG) information from the payment server.
This is in addition to the other disclosed elements for facilitating a transaction by using coded symbol to verify the transaction parties previously disclosed and currently existing in the claim language. The newly added elements – in combination with the other claim elements – overcome the prior art previously found and currently searched. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 are directed to a system or method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 6 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 1. Claim 6 recites the limitations facilitating a transaction by using coded symbol to verify the transaction parties.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving billing info; requesting generation of an open-bill/QR code; generating the QR code; scanning QR code; verifying the QR code; and displaying a “mobile PG service” on smart phone, the QR code includes a store-specific value and order number information, the QR code-based open bill generated includes a dynamic authentication value of a service provider such that service provider information is displayed on the payer terminal, and after confirming the displayed of service provider information, the payer inputs payment information to request payment gateway (PG) information from the payment server – specifically, the claim recites “receive billing information and request generation of an open bill in a form of a QR code… generate the requested open bill and provide the requested open bill… scan the open bill displayed… verify a payment bill linked to the open bill when the payer terminal scans the open bill, and then allow a mobile PG service to be displayed… such that a payer is able to make mobile payment using a service of a payment company desired by the payer; the QR code includes a store-specific value and order number information; the QR code-based open bill is generated to further include a dynamic authentication value of a service provider such that information of the service provider is displayed on the payer terminal; and, after confirming the displayed information of the service provider, the payer inputs payment information to request payment gateway (PG) information”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a Quick Response (“QR”) code-based bill-linked Payment Gateway (“PG”) service system”, “a service terminal”, “a payment server”, and “a smartphone-type payer terminal”, in claim 1, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 6 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a Quick Response (“QR”) code-based bill-linked Payment Gateway (“PG”) service system, a payment server, a service terminal , and a smartphone-type payer terminal;
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 6 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of a generation section configured to generate the open bill in the form of a QR code; a communication section configured to receive the billing information from the service terminal and provide the open bill to the service terminal; and a payment section configured to provide the PG service when the payer terminal scans the above open bill, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a communication section”, “the service terminal”, “a payment section”, and “the payer terminal”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of wherein the billing information includes a payment amount and service provider information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of an inquiry unit configured to display the payment bill including the payment amount and the service provider information corresponding to the open bill on the payer terminal; a list unit configured to list and display one or more of payment companies which the payer is able to pay with, including card companies, banks, financial transaction providers, and virtual currency transaction providers; and a payment unit configured to make payment through a service of a payment company selected by the payer, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “an inquiry unit”, “a list unit”, and “a payment unit”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of the list unit is configured to list the payment companies according to a default language of a browser set in the payer terminal or a language corresponding to a Global Positioning Service (“GPS”) location of the payer terminal, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the list unit” and “the payer terminal” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of wherein the requesting, by the service provider, the open bill in a form of a QR code through the service terminal includes: logging in, by the service provider, to a payment app; and requesting the open bill by inputting the billing information to the payment app, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the service terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of the providing, by the payment server, the open bill to the service terminal includes: receiving, by the payment server, the billing information from the service terminal; generating the open bill in the form of the QR code according to the provided billing information; and providing and displaying the generated open bill to and on the service terminal, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the payment server” and “the service terminal” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of making an inquiry for a payment bill containing a payment amount and service provider information, corresponding to the scanned open bill; displaying the inquired payment bill on the payer terminal; displaying, on the payer terminal, a list of at least one of payment companies that the payer is able to use, including card companies, banks, financial transaction providers, and virtual currency transaction providers; requesting, by the payer, a payment to the selected payment company; and requesting, by the payer, payment to the payment company through the payment page and making payment, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the payer terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of the displaying, on the payer terminal, the list of at least one of payment companies that the payer is able to use further includes listing the payment companies according to a default language of a browser set in the payer terminal or a language corresponding to a Global Positioning Service (“GPS”) location of the payer terminal, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the payer terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of in making an inquiry for a payment bill containing the payment amount and the service provider information corresponding to the scanned open bill, the payment amount of the payment bill is equally divided according to a number of payers entered in the payment app, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of in making an inquiry for a payment bill containing the payment amount and the service provider information corresponding to the scanned open bill, the payment amount of the payment bill is provided in a divided manner according to a billing amount for each payer entered in the payment app, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of in calling, by the payer terminal, a PG service by scanning the open bill generated, the open bill is arranged to be viewed by only a number of payers, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the payer terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-13 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s 35 USC 103 arguments are moot because the prior art rejections are withdrawn. The examiner is withdrawing the prior art rejections because the amended claims contain new scope narrowing elements which, in combination with the existing elements, sufficiently narrow the claimed scope to overcome the existing prior art and additional art searched. See Examiner Comment Relating to Prior Art above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… Claim 1 (and, similarly, claim 6) has been amended… (reciting claim 1 language)… the QR code includes a store-specific value and order number information; the QR code-based open bill is generated to further include a dynamic authentication value of a service provider such that information of the service provider is displayed on the payer terminal; and, after confirming the displayed information of the service provider, the payer inputs payment information to request payment gateway (PG) information from the payment server. (Emphasis original’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison to the prior version, the added elements (see underlined) and deleted elements (if any, struck out with a line) are essentially:
(1) “the QR code includes a store-specific value and order number information”;
(2) “the QR code-based open bill is generated to further include a dynamic authentication value of a service provider such that information of the service provider is displayed on the payer terminal”; and
(3) “after confirming the displayed information of the service provider, the payer inputs payment information to request payment gateway (PG) information from the payment server”.
These changes are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections because: for 101 analysis purpose, this is just stating (corresponding to the numberings above):
data content, which is abstract;
data content that is displayed, which is procedural and abstract; and
payer action after an event, which is abstract;
These are abstract ideas. There is nothing technical about it.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claims 1 and 6 overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection by transforming the claims from an abstract "fundamental economic practice" into a practical application that solves a specific technical problem,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the claim’s computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The claim amendments introduce three specific technical requirements… Store-Specific and Order Number Information,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is data content, which is abstract.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Dynamic Authentication Value,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is also data content, which is abstract.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Sequential Verification Flow: The payer must manually confirm the displayed information of the service provider before they can input payment information to request PG details from the payment server,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a payer action after an event, which is procedural and abstract.
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights