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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
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.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method. The claim falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention. 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).
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).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A method of presenting representations of payment accepting unit events, comprising:
at a mobile device with one or more processors, memory, one or more output devices including a display, and one or more radio transceivers:
identifying one or more payment accepting units in proximity to the mobile device that are available to accept payment from a mobile payment application executing on the mobile device, the identifying including detecting predefined radio messages broadcast by the one or more payment accepting units;
displaying a user interface of the mobile payment application on the display of the mobile device, the user interface being configured to accept user input to trigger payment by the mobile payment application for a vending transaction initiated by a user of the mobile device with an available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units;
establishing via the one or more radio transceivers a wireless connection between the mobile device and the available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units;
after establishing the wireless connection, presenting on the user interface of the mobile payment application and enabling user interaction with the user interface of the mobile payment application to complete the vending transaction;
exchanging information with the available payment accepting unit via the one or more radio transceivers, in conjunction with the vending transaction; and
in response to receiving the information, displaying, on the display, an updated user interface of the mobile payment application to the user of the mobile device.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The BRI stands on the performing of a financial transaction at a vending machine in proximity to a mobile device using the mobile device.
Although the claims recite an abstract idea based on these methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts, the Examiner must then determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To this end, we (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the following above noted bolded limitations being understood to be the additional limitations.
The limitation of “receiving” and “displaying” involve data gathering and the functions of “identifying”, “exchanging” and “displaying” amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1)), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer, and any kind of digital computer.
The claimed “processor”, “payment accepting units”, “mobile device”, and “user interface” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps or functions by a generic machine, computing device or one or more processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claimed “processor”, “payment accepting units”, “mobile device”, and “user interface” are noted only to be used as tools to perform functions. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claimed functions of “receiving”, “identifying”, “exchanging” and “display” or “displaying” of data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by a mobile device and a payment accepting unite using a communication interface to perform a financial transaction.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence or functions using a communication interface to perform a financial transaction.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
The receiving and displaying of data by a computing device or electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving and displaying data over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “mobile device”, “processor and memory”, and “payment accepting units” and a “user interface” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computers for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving data and performing conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors”, “mobile device“, “payment accepting units” in communication with a user interface are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S. Patent No. 9,898,884 to Arora (Exh. 1004)).
As per claim 1, Arora discloses a computerized system and method for facilitating a user with a mobile device to make purchases at a vending machine or payment accepting unit. See the abstract of Arora. Accordingly, Arora teaches or discloses all the claimed limitations. Particularly, Arora teaches or discloses:
A method of presenting representations of payment accepting unit events, comprising:
at a mobile device with one or more processors, memory, one or more output devices including a display (as most mobile devices and/or computing device comprise a processor, memory, a display or sound device being output devices), and one or more radio transceivers (for the sending or receiving of signals or data. The use of NFC, Bluetooth and GSM may be applied for communication purposes (see column 13, lines 14-46 of Arora));
identifying one or more payment accepting units in proximity to the mobile
device that are available to accept payment from a mobile payment application executing on the mobile device (column 12, lines 18-23 and column 15, lines 2-9 of Arora) the identifying including detecting predefined radio messages broadcast by the one or more payment accepting units (as Arora teaches running an application software on the mobile device or user device) (column 4, lines 15-17 and column 4, lines 40-60) and states:
“In a simple example, a customer walks near a machine. The app, knowing the location of the customer, the machine and its current inventory, the customer's preferences and purchasing history, including products and typical purchase times, buzzes the phone in the customer's pocket. The customer removes the phone and sees a display of both the machine and a selection of her favorite products. “Dispense Sugar-Os,” she says to her phone. Under control of the app, the vending machine dispenses a package of Sugar-O's with no further actions by the customer. The application manages or communicates payment, participation in a loyalty program, customer health information, and vending inventory. In an alternative simple scenario, the customer simply touches a single icon representing a “Magic Almonds” consumer packaged good (CPG) and a bottle of spring water on her phone, and the vending machine next to her immediately dispenses the Magic almonds product while the vending machine next to the first machine simultaneously dispenses a bottle of water, where the specific brand of the bottle of water was selected by the vending company”) ;
Accordingly, the buzzing on the user phone and the provision of the vending information are provided through a wireless message broadcast by the vending machine. The above protocols utilize preconfigured messages such as handshakes and acknowledgements.
Arora further teaches:
displaying a user interface of the mobile payment application on the display of the mobile
device, the user interface being configured to accept user input to trigger payment by the mobile payment application (column 4, lines 40-51 and column 19, lines 14-18 of Arora) for a vending transaction initiated by a user of the mobile device with an available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units (column 14, lines 9-16 of Arora);
establishing via the one or more radio transceivers a wireless connection between
the mobile device and the available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units (column 13, lines 14-46 and column 17, lines 35-55 of Arora);
after establishing the wireless connection, presenting on the user interface of the mobile payment application and enabling user interaction with the user interface of the mobile payment application to complete the vending transaction (see column 4,lines 40-59 of Arora);
exchanging information with the available payment accepting unit via the one or more radio transceivers, in conjunction with the vending transaction (column 14, lines 16-51); and
in response to receiving the information, displaying, on the display, an updated user interface of the mobile payment application to the user of the mobile device (see column 4, lines 40-59 and column 21, lines 11-21 of Arora).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
February 24, 2026