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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
The USPTO has retrieved certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. In that event, failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed June 23, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed April 2, 2026. Claims 1-9 were previously pending with claims 8-9 subject to a restriction/election requirement. During a telephone conversation with CARL PELLEGRINI (Reg.No.40766) on March 20, 2026, and follow-up voicemail on March 23, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-7. Applicant’s remarks filed June 23, 2026, include affirmation of this election without traverse. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration and claims 1-7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Claims 1-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yachin et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 11,587,059 B1) in view of AthuluruTlrumala et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 10,325,102 B2). The amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues “Because the terminal device interface is connected to terminal devices used by users, it is integrated into a practical application for providing mobile payment services and receiving the first event messages,” and “Because the order processing apparatus interface is connected to the self-ordering system through the second API, which is distinct from the first API, it is integrated into a practical application of the self-ordering system.” Remarks pp.7-8. Examiner’s response is that simply reciting that an interface is connected to devices with an intended use does not integrate any abstract idea into any practical application. Applicant applies the same rationale to every limitation in claims 1, 7, and the remaining dependent claims, but the remaining limitations are addressed to abstract ideas themselves without reciting any additional elements, and applicant does not offer any rationale to argue that any element recited in any of these claims is an “additional element”. Allowing abstract ideas to integrate themselves into practical applications is not conceivable under present law. A more detailed consideration of the additional elements with regard to the step 2A prong 2 practical application test appears below in the rejection.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Applicant's argument filed June 23, 2026, regarding “terminal devices used by users” has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Claims 1-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yachin et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 11,587,059 B1) in view of AthuluruTlrumala et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 10,325,102 B2). The amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection. It is however noted that applicant’s implication, or assumption that “users” cannot refer to vendors is not reasonable. Vendors are also users.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) (step 1). 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) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-7 are directed to a machine. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“users who receive one or more services provided by one or more mobile payment service providers with a first application programming interface (API)…, to receive first messages of events relating to the received first messages; an… interface configured to be connected to a self-ordering system with a second API executable in the self-ordering system and different from the first API, output second messages of the events and provide the users with the one or more services; an event workflow database configured to have each of the events and each of a plurality of workflows that realize the events correspond to each other, and store the events and the workflows; and a message generator configured to generate the second messages by performing the workflows corresponding to the events stored in the event workflow database; and … receive the second messages and execute the received second messages to provide the users with the one or more services.” Claim 7.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in claim 7 are a terminal device interface configured to be connected to a plurality of terminal devices with a first application programming interface (API) provided by each of the plurality of terminal devices, and an order processing apparatus. Claims 1-6 do not include the order processing apparatus. The order processing apparatus interface may or may not be an additional element because it may or may not be part of the order processing apparatus. As part of the order processing apparatus it may contribute to the operational capacity of the order processing apparatus and potentially contribute to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, but it could also be an unspecific means of communicating (interfacing) with the order processing apparatus by another, unidentified, device. The terminal device interface is interpreted as an operational part of a terminal device because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a terminal device to necessarily include an interface unless otherwise stated, and the claim includes specific recitation of terminal devices. This understanding does not apply to the order processing apparatus interface because an order processing apparatus is understood to perform its own scheme of order processing operations independently of whether or not it includes an interface. For present purposes the order processing apparatus interface is therefore not considered an additional element. In any case it does not appear to perform any particularly claimed operation that would change the present analysis regardless of its interpretation.
These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., terminal device interface is configured to be connected to a plurality of terminal devices used by users with a first API provided by each of the plurality of terminal devices. The terminal devices or the interface or perhaps only one terminal device receive messages (see the rejection under 35 USC 112 below). The order processing apparatus is configured to receive the second messages and execute the received second messages to provide the users with the one or more services.
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract data manipulation and transmissions, and the performance of broadly recited and undefined workflows. The workflows themselves are abstract because their recitation is unspecific and disconnected from any means for their performance, so they can only be understood as referring to the abstract concept of event related workflows. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are identified as generally applying the method, and the method itself is described only as data gathering, generation, and transmission, without reference to any other particular acts or functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B. The activities performed by the claimed devices are all within the realm considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, in accord with the following precedents:
● data gathering and outputting (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering);
● Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface accomplishes the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); analyzing queries, processing information, and generating a video or audio response, implemented using generic computer devices was merely collecting, organizing, and displaying information, using conventional elements including a computer exchanging information, W. View Research v. Audi Ag, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6703; A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
● “generating and transmitting a notification based on the information,” “receiving a message,” "determining … and processing information.” Beteiro, LLC v. Draftkings Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15069.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that remaining dependent claims 2-6 do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the calculations and identification of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yachin et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 11,587,059 B1) in view of ASANUMA KATSUHIDE (JP 2020064593 A).
Yachin teaches a) transactions between user terminal devices, b) devices on each end of a transaction including APIs, c) mobile ordering, and d) order processing interfaces, and discloses regarding
Claim 1. A message processing apparatus, comprising: ● a terminal device interface configured to be connected to a plurality of terminal devices used by users who receive one or more services provided by one or more mobile payment service providers with a first application programming interface (API) provided by each of the plurality of terminal devices, the terminal device is configured to receive first messages of events relating to the received first messages (see at least Yachin abstract “a client-side e-commerce platform executing on the mobile device that identifies candidate items for purchase based on images related to an item desired by the user…. Purchase information for items offered by participating vendors, or third-party vendors, is retrieved by the platform via APIs of the vendor network,” c1:16-40 “simultaneous invocation of multiple diverse APIs,” c1:43-c2:24 “client-side platform may retrieve pricing, inventory, and other purchase information from affiliated vendors by calling Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of the affiliated vendors or vendor networks”).
Yachin teaches all of the above as noted, and discloses
● an order processing apparatus interface part configured to be connected to a self-ordering system with a second API different from the first API via a mobile order interface (see at least Yachin c1:16-40 “Current systems for web-based purchasing or mobile purchasing (e.g., via an internet-enabled smartphone or similar mobile device) incorporate an Application Programming Interface (API) to manage the exchange of information between a broad variety of client-side and merchant-side systems”), but does not explicitly disclose an order processing apparatus interface configured to be connected to a self-ordering system with a second API executable in the self-ordering system and different from the first API, output second messages of the events and provide the users with the one or more services; an event workflow database configured to have each of the a plurality of events and each of a plurality of workflows that realize the events correspond to each other, and-to store the events and the workflows; and a message generator configured to generate the second messages by performing the workflows corresponding to the events stored in the event workflow database.
ASANUMA KATSUHIDE also teaches a) an order processing apparatus, b) an interface configured to be connected to a self-ordering system, and c) a second API, and d) the second API different from the first API, and further discloses
● an order processing apparatus interface configured to be connected to a self-ordering system with a second API executable in the self-ordering system and different from the first API, output second messages of the events and provide the users with the one or more services (see at least ASANUMA KATSUHIDE abstract “an event implementation management API and a resource management API,” p.3 ¶3 “an event plan that can be combined and executed, and message distribution and response between the participant terminals. There is disclosed an event management system including an event execution means for receiving an event and controlling the progress of the event,” p.30¶2-4 “contents that users can use on this screen are articles (see Fig. 18) and service screens of external modules. As special articles, there are an event explanation page (including an invitation message), a participant type (see FIG. 34) selection screen, and an event start page”);
● an event workflow database configured to have each of the plurality of events and each of a plurality of workflows that realize the events correspond to each other, and-to store the events and the workflows (see at least ASANUMA KATSUHIDE abstract “an event database storing an event implementation program,” p.4¶3 “registers in the event database an event execution program”); and
● a message generator configured to generate the second messages by performing the workflows corresponding to the events stored in the event workflow database (see at least ASANUMA KATSUHIDE p.3¶3 “event plan creation management means for creating an event plan that can be combined and executed, and message distribution and response between the participant terminals. There is disclosed an event management system including an event execution means for receiving an event and controlling the progress of the event,” p.3¶6 “execution of scenarios, which are unit units of events, message transmission / reception with event participating terminals, location information processing of event participant terminals, event progress recording, …. an event database device 52 for storing log data,” p.125¶6 “Event execution management for executing and managing at least one of execution of a scenario which is a unit of event, message transmission / reception with an event participant terminal, location information processing of an event participant terminal, event progress recording, log data collection”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Yachin to include an order processing apparatus interface configured to be connected to a self-ordering system with a second API executable in the self-ordering system and different from the first API, output second messages of the events and provide the users with the one or more services, as taught by ASANUMA KATSUHIDE since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from ASANUMA KATSUHIDE in the method of Yachin. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Pertaining to system claim 7
Rejection of claim 7 is based on the same rationale noted above with regard to claim 1. In addition Yachin does not disclose an order processing apparatus configured to receive the second messages and execute the received second messages to provide the users with the one or more services. ASANUMA KATSUHIDE however teaches regarding
Claim 7. A self-ordering system, comprising:
● an order processing apparatus configured to receive the second messages and execute the received second messages to provide the users with the one or more services (see at least ASANUMA KATSUHIDE abstract “an event implementation management API and a resource management API,” p.3 ¶3 “an event plan that can be combined and executed, and message distribution and response between the participant terminals. There is disclosed an event management system including an event execution means for receiving an event and controlling the progress of the event,” p.30¶2-4 “contents that users can use on this screen are articles (see Fig. 18) and service screens of external modules. As special articles, there are an event explanation page (including an invitation message), a participant type (see FIG. 34) selection screen, and an event start page”).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yachin et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 11,587,059 B1) in view of ASANUMA KATSUHIDE (JP 2020064593 A), and further in view of AthuluruTlrumala et al. (Paper No. 20260319; Patent No.: US 10,325,102 B2).
Yachin in view of ASANUMA KATSUHIDE teaches the above as noted but does not explicitly disclose wherein the message generator is configured to convert the first messages received from each of the plurality of terminal devices into abstracted messages of the events to store the abstracted messages corresponding to the workflows in the event workflow database.
AthuluruTlrumala also teaches a) transactions between user terminal devices, b) devices on each end of a transaction including APIs, c) mobile ordering, and d) order processing interfaces, and further discloses regarding
Claim 2. The message processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the message generator is configured to convert the first messages received from each of the plurality of terminal devices into abstracted messages of the events to store the abstracted messages corresponding to the workflows in the event workflow database (see at least AthuluruTlrumala fig. 26, c17:60-67 “system 10 can include relationship building: Promoting a product or service to one or more communities and receiving instant and summarized feedback on community transactions”).Claim 3. The message processing apparatus according to claim 1, comprising: ● a first message queue configured to queue the received first messages between the terminal device interface and the message generator (see at least AthuluruTlrumala figs. 2-3, c9:1-12 “a conversation between humans similar to Simple Message Service (SMS) texts. For a Real-time Event Manager, real-time events have expiration times and may be overridden by later events based on the semantics of the events. The real-time event manager controls the queuing, scheduling, and semantic processing of real-time events from sensors and to update situational awareness. 3rd Party Service Client APIs are used to invoke 3rd party services and 3rd party developers who can leverage the platform for providing new applications to businesses and end customers”); and ● a second message queue configured to queue second messages between the message generator and the order processing apparatus interface (see at least AthuluruTlrumala figs. 2-3, 31, c11:43-67 “several associated flows-a) Pre-experience check-in flows: … food ordering flow (nurses, dietician, food and beverage manager, delivery person); c) Checkout flows: billing flow, discharge flow, room cleaning flow, valet flow Also, experiences can be grouped. A restaurant experience can be combined with hotel stay experience to create composite experience. … a unique user interface boils the entire experience along with its unique identifier to a status color with associated status message-the real-time experience indicators 62”).Claim 4. The message processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the events include one or more of making a reservation at a restaurant, ordering food or drinks, paying for the ordered food or drinks, refunding payment for the food or drinks, notifying the detail of a food order to a chef in a kitchen, and managing the time required from ordering the food or drinks to serving the food or drinks (see at least AthuluruTlrumala c8:1-44 “External Reference Resolver, various entities may be shared between customers. For example, a menu item at a restaurant, an event plan for an evening, a review comment for a theater show, and an advertisement for a service may all be shared,” c12:49-67 “enables experiences and product customizations to be cloned. An example of experience cloning: one can copy their friend's entire trip to Venice and the system 10 will help you clone all the restaurants visited, make bookings when a particular chef is available, arrange for the same tour service”. Please note: The phrase "one or more of" precedes the recitation of alternative or optional limitations only one of which is required. Language claiming elements in the alternative is anticipated by the presence of any single alternative. Beyond that it does not result in any further limitation because it merely represents contingencies that are not required. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").).Claim 5. The message processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of terminal devices is configured to transmit to the terminal device interface messages in a format compatible with each of the one or more services provided by a plurality of companies (see at least AthuluruTlrumala fig. 2, c22:45-67 “The system 10 can be a match-maker for local business-"Taste Identity"-Matchmaking between local vendors and its consumer communities; Preference driven: Targeted communities, Intent driven, Personal favorites; Taste driven: Adaptive taste profile; Relevance thru capturing real transactions (Product Launch, Deals and Services); Ease to use and secure: Product Launch, Short term deals and Group deals; Quick and easy predefined targeted product launch with rich media; Product launch with time based deals and group deals-Its Tuesday lunch buffet with 75% empty tables. Send instant predefined deals with one step; Instant one-step services: Repeating favorite orders, Reservations”).Claim 6. The message processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein one of the one or more services provides at least one of a product or a work (see at least Yachin abstract “platform executing on the mobile device that identifies candidate items for purchase,” figs. 3, c1:15-40 “allow an end user to identify and purchase a desired item or product”. Please note: see previous comment concerning optional limitations.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Yachin in view of ASANUMA KATSUHIDE to include wherein the message generator is configured to convert the first messages received from each of the plurality of terminal devices into abstracted messages of the events to store the abstracted messages corresponding to the workflows in the event workflow database, and other limitations of claims 2-5, as taught by AthuluruTlrumala since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the features from AthuluruTlrumala in the method of Yachin in view of ASANUMA KATSUHIDE. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a terminal device interface configured to be connected to a plurality of terminal devices… with a first application programming interface (API) provided by each of the plurality of terminal devices, the terminal device is configured to…”. This is indefinite because there is one terminal device interface, and a plurality of terminal devices, but the claim then refers to “the terminal device.” It is therefore unknown whether applicant intends “the terminal device” to refer to one of the plurality (for which there is no antecedent basis), each terminal device (in which case the claim should read “the terminal devices [[is]] are configured” or “each terminal device is configured”), or the “terminal device interface.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● Fish et al., Patent No.: US 12,149,524 B1: teaches responding to multiple user service requests via multiple APIs. This is an intervening reference.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 September 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights