DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on May 28, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been canceled and claims 2-20 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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.
In sum, claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-8), a machine (claims 9-16), and a manufacture (claims 17-20), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of gathering merchant information in order to complete a transaction by;
identifying a first,…,in proximity to,…, based at least in part on broadcasted information transmitted by the first,…, and received by the,…, using a short-range communication protocol, wherein the broadcasted information includes a first identifier corresponding to the first,…;
transmitting, using a network communication protocol different from the short-range communication protocol, the first identifier to a,…,and, in response to transmitting the first identifier to the,…, receiving from the,…, an electronic communication including:
first merchant identification information of a first merchant associated with the first…., wherein the first merchant identification information includes one or more of a name, logo, picture, address, phone, or email of the first merchant; and
first merchant transaction information identifying one or more transaction options for a proposed in-person transaction between the,…, and the first merchant, wherein the one or more transaction options include at least one of a merchant-specified transaction amount, a preset transaction amount, an available offer, or an available reward;
displaying on the,…,the first merchant identification information;
receiving from a user of the,…,selection of the first merchant identification information;
in response to receiving the selection of the first merchant identification information:
displaying the first merchant transaction information;
receiving from the user of the,…,first supplemental transaction information, wherein the first supplemental transaction information includes a selection of, or an input corresponding to, at least one of the one or more transaction options; and
transmitting the first supplemental transaction information to the,…, using the network communication protocol, wherein the first supplemental transaction information is transmitted to the,…, rather than to the first merchant,…, through the short-range communication protocol for completion of the proposed in-person transaction; and
in response to transmitting the first supplemental transaction information to the,…, receiving confirmation from the,…, that the proposed in-person transaction between the,…, and the first merchant has been completed.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., gathering merchant information in order to complete a transaction).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” “server,” and “display” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0010] of the specification). Independent claims 9 and 17 are nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to those claims as well.
Dependent claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following references pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
1. BIMOLAKSONO et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0257100) discloses systems and methods for providing a virtual card token for facilitating RTP transactions. However, the current invention allows for the use of a close proximity detection of a consumer and merchant device to then display merchant information on the consumer device and then automatically having the preset transaction amount presented onto the consumer device to then complete the transaction. BIMOLAKSONO does not teach any of these features.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “...claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because it recites a particular distributed communication architecture that separates local merchant discovery from server-side transaction completion. Claims 2-8 further reinforce this architecture, including through limitations directed to multiple nearby merchant-device discovery, BLE receipt of broadcasted information with cellular or Wi-Fi server communication, exclusion of payment credential information from the merchant-device broadcast, and server-to-merchant confirmation through a path bypassing the short-range consumer-to-merchant protocol.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). However, the amended claim limitations are not indicative of an integration into a practical application as improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field is not evidenced. Merely separating communication pathways from one device interaction to another does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights