DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This application is in reply to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated May 29, 2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1-19 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
5. Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 13 recites, in the fourth limitation, “wherein the computer program comprises instructions for performing:” followed by a number of limitations. The subsequent limitations should be indented as being the steps being performed by the instructions.
For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim in this manner, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 has a substantially similar issue which is similarly objected to and requires correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
6. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope.
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. 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. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "a method for providing ordering information using dynamic information, the method comprising:”
The preamble of the instant claim 14 recites “an ordering terminal for providing a time-variable dynamic information, the terminal comprising:”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for providing ordering information using dynamic information” as recited in the preamble of Claim 1 and “for providing a time-variable dynamic information” as recited in Claim 14 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
As amended, the claim recites that dynamic information is obtained by scanning a QR code displayed on an ordering terminal or by communicating with the ordering terminal through NFC followed by a step of transmitting, by the user terminal, a protocol request together with the dynamic information to a service server using a first URL of the dynamic information.
Applicant’s specification discloses that an exemplary method where the dynamic information is obtained by scanning a QR code or communicating through NFC, however discloses that the protocol request is to a location specified by a first URL of the dynamic information and transmits a service request by using the address information of the Internet resource provided when the dynamic information is valid in response to the protocol request. (See Applicant Spec pages 5-6)
The claim recites transmitting a protocol request using a first URL – which has not been disclosed to be present in or extracted from the dynamic information as claimed, and the dynamic information has not been determined to be valid before the protocol request is transmitted using the (presumably) extracted first URL. Thus, there are steps missing and/or out of order in the claim that would be required in order for the method to function in the manner disclosed by the specification. There is no embodiment that would work in the manner currently recited without those additional steps.
Further, the claim recites “extracting by the service server, a ciphertext from the dynamic information”. Again, the specification discloses a process that does not match the recited limitations or process. The specification indicates the ordering terminal may obtain a timestamp of the current time from an internal timer, input the obtained timestamp and a secret key of the ordering terminal into an encryption algorithm, and obtain a hash code as an output value thereof and also may generate an instant ciphertext from the obtained hash code according to a predetermined rule where the instant ciphertext may be a time-based one-time password. (See Applicant Spec page 15) This is not a case of simply extracting a ciphertext from the dynamic information as claimed in Claim 1 and the specification does not indicate that there is a ciphertext in the dynamic information natively, nor can one be directly extracted from the dynamic information. Rather, the ciphertext is generated and then the ordering terminal may generate the dynamic information including the ciphertext in the form of a QR code and/or NFC information. Again, the process appears to be out of order and the steps recited in Claim 3 and Claim 4 should be part of the process recited in Claim 1.
Claims 13-14 have similar issues which will similarly need to be addressed.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus claim, however the presented claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the process attempting to be claimed.
The apparatus is disclosed to be a service server in the preamble which comprises a processor; a memory for loading a computer program executed by the processor; a storage for storing the computer program, wherein the computer program comprises instructions for performing an operation of receiving a protocol request together with dynamic information from a user terminal, an operation of extracting a ciphertext from the dynamic information, an operation of validating an effectiveness of the dynamic information on the basis of the ciphertext and an operation of providing address information of an Internet resource corresponding to the dynamic information to the user terminal when the dynamic information is valid. To this point, the claim is reciting instructions to perform operations of extracting, validating and providing an Internet resource address. Additionally, the apparatus is not recited to be configured to perform the operations, rather the steps are noted to be operations that can be performed by the computer program itself.
As amended, the claim now adds a wherein clause that requires steps being undertaken by an ordering terminal actively in order to function – and as noted above, the steps appear to be out of order. The ordering terminal and user device are recited to be configured as separate devices in the last wherein clause. The scanning of a QR code is not happening using the computer apparatus claimed nor is recited to be configured to do so. This step is occurring outside of the claimed computing apparatus and the steps are occurring outside of the bounds of the claim.
Claim 14 recites a device claim as to an ordering terminal however again, the steps do not appear in the manner disclosed by the specification as noted above. Again, the device (here the ordering terminal) is disclosed to have a computer program for performing operations, however is not being configured to perform the steps indicated. The additional wherein clause newly added to the claim is reciting a step that would be conducted by a user operating a user terminal – not by the ordering terminal claimed.
The claims appear to be conflating steps that are taken within the disclosed method, apparatus and device claims with other steps that are occurring outside of the defined devices or method. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claims sought to be patented are.
Further, it appears that dependent on which element is functioning, the steps do not occur in the same way. For instance, in reference to Claim 1 and 13, the ciphertext is extracted from the dynamic information and may be decrypted to obtain a decrypted timestamp and salt and the service server may validate the effectiveness of the dynamic information by comparing the obtained timestamp with the current time at the service server. (See Applicant Spec page 52) In Claim 14 the ciphertext appears to be pre-generated and embedded in the memory of the ordering terminal to provide a timestamp of the current time from an internal timer on the ordering terminal. (See Applicant Spec page 16-17)
The dependent claims further confound the claim set. For instance, in Claim 3, the ciphertext is disclosed to be obtained from the timestamp of the ordering terminal – which is based on an alternative embodiment than the one recited in the body of Claim 1.
The import of the limitations recited in the entire claim set are confusing and disjointed. There are numerous issues with imperfect antecedent basis, mixed embodiments and confounding limitations that make the claim set impossible to examine properly.
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 15-20 are further rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Because claims 1-20 are so indefinite, no art rejection is warranted as substantial guesswork would be involved in determining the scope and content of these claims. see In re Steele, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d, 1653, 1655 (BPAI 1989); and In re Wilson, 65 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is nevertheless cited and applicants are reminded they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Examiner notes that the prior art will be revisited on amendment once the claims conform to defined metes and bounds and consistent recitations as to the import of various claim terms.
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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method claim. Claim 13 recites a computing apparatus of a service server. Claim 14 recites an ordering terminal. Currently, Claims 13-14 have a separate rejection as being non-statutory (as shown below), however Examiner assumes that Applicant will rectify the claims to properly claim the invention as within statutory categories.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing ordering information. The idea is described by the following limitations:
obtaining, by a user, the dynamic information;
transmitting, by the user, a protocol request together with the dynamic information;
receiving the protocol request together with the dynamic information from the user;
extracting text from the dynamic information;
validating, an effectiveness of the dynamic information on the basis of the text;
providing address information of an internet resource corresponding to the dynamic information to the user when the dynamic information is valid; and
transmitting, by the user, a service request using the address information of the internet resource received in response to the protocol request.
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of receiving and validating dynamic information and providing corresponding information when the dynamic information is valid. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a protocol request together with dynamic information from a user;
extracting text from the dynamic information;
validating an effectiveness of the dynamic information on the basis of the text;
providing address information of an internet resource corresponding to the dynamic information to the user when the dynamic information is valid,
wherein the dynamic information is obtained by the user and is transmitted from the user together with the protocol request.
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea of providing dynamic information. The idea is described by the following limitations:
generating dynamic information by combining text generated on the basis of time information,
generating a code on the basis of the dynamic information to display the generated code or provide the dynamic information a user
Under a BRI, Claim 1 reflects no more than an existing approach for a user to scan a displayed code or communicating through NFC to obtain information and sending the code and a request to a server using an URL where the server extracts data from the received information, validates the data and when valid, sending address information of an internet resource to a user and the user transmitting a service request using the received address information. This may reflect no more than sending a web address to a user and the user utilizing the received web address to send a service request.
As to Claim 13, the claim reflects no more than a server receiving a request along with dynamic information from a user, extracting text from the received dynamic information, validating the dynamic information on the basis of the text and providing address information of a URL when the dynamic information is valid. As to Claim 14, the claim reflects no more than generating dynamic information by combining text generated on the basis of an URL, generating a code based on dynamic information and displaying or communicating the code.
As a result, the claims describe certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to the certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve managing commercial interactions (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a user terminal, a QR code, an ordering terminal, NFC, a first URL, a service server, and a ciphertext.
Claim 13 recites service server comprising a processor, a memory for loading a computer program, and a storage for storing the computer program; instructions; a ciphertext; a user terminal; a first URL, a QR code, an ordering terminal, and NFC.
Claim 14 recites an ordering terminal comprising a processor, a memory for loading a computer program, and a storage for storing the computer program; instructions; a first URL, a QR code, a user terminal and NFC.
In particular, the claims only recite a user terminal, an ordering terminal , a service server, a QR code, NFC, a first URL, a ciphertext, a service server comprising a processor, a memory for loading a computer program, storage for storing the computer program, instructions, an ordering terminal comprising a processor, a memory for loading a computer program and a storage for storing the computer program, which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to 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. Therefore, Claims 1 and 13-14 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)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) 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). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data - all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“As an exemplary embodiment, the user terminal 300 may be a computing apparatus capable of communicating with the service server 100, and may be, for example, any one of a smartphone, a mobile phone, a navigation device, a computer, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable multimedia player (PMP), and/or a tablet PC, but is not limited thereto. For example, any device among terminal device having a data communication function may be the user terminal 300. In addition, the user terminal 300 may have a program or application installed in advance for performing the method for providing ordering information by using dynamic information, may receive the dynamic information provider by the server 100 for providing the ordering information through the program or application, and may support QR code photographing by the user’s manipulation or NFC communication functions.” (See Applicant Spec page 19, line 24-page 20, line 14)
“Referring to FIG. 3, the ordering terminal 200 may include a controller 210, a time calculator 220, dynamic information generator 230, a storage unit 240, and/or a display unit 250. Some components 210, 220, 230, of the ordering terminal 200 shown in FIG. 3 may be software modules, but are not limited thereto.
The controller 210 may control the overall operation of the ordering terminal 200. For example, the controller 210 may control the calling and operation of functions for driving other components 220, 230, 240, 250 of the ordering terminal 200, or may control the operation of various components included in the ordering terminal 200, such as a CPU, a communication device, etc.” (See Applicant Spec page 30, lines 13-25)
“Hereinafter, an exemplary computing apparatus 500 where the methods described in the various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure are implemented will be described with reference to FIG. 19 may be the service server 100, the ordering terminal 200, or the user terminal 300 of FIG. 1.”
FIG. 19 is an exemplary hardware configuration diagram showing a computing apparatus 500 may include one or more processors 510, a bus 550, a communication interface 570, a memory 591 for loading a computer program 591 executed by the processor 510, and a storage 590 for storing the computer program 591. However, only components related to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may be shown in FIG. 19. Accordingly, it may be understood by those skilled in the art that other general components may be further included in addition to the components shown in FIG. 19.
The processor 510 may control the overall operation of each component of the computing apparatus 500. The processor 510 may be configured to include at least one of a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor (MPU), a micro controller unit (MCU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or any type of processor well known in the technical field of the present disclosure. In addition, the processor 510 may perform an operation on at least one application or program for executing a method/operation according to various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. The computing apparatus 500 may include one or more processors.” (See Applicant Spec page 69, line 17-page 70, line 19)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The independent claims 1 and 13-14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 15-20 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1, and 13-14 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. No additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception 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 also directed to an abstract idea .
Thus, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claims 13-20, the claims are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As in Claim 13, the preamble of the claim indicates the claim pertains to an apparatus.
However, the claims recite system elements comprising a series of “operation[s]” which, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, denotes software or a computer program. Software and computer programs are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
It further appears that Applicant is attempting to claim a computer program product claim.
Claim 13 further does not recite that the computer program product comprises a computer readable medium having computer readable program instructions or code embodied thereon and configured to control a computer to perform specific functional steps. The lack of recitation of any specific computer readable medium results in a claim that recites functionally descriptive material (defined as “data structures and computer programs with impart functionality when encoded on a computer readable medium” by the Computer-Implemented Invention Guidelines) without any interrelationships between the data structure and other aspects of the invention that would permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. Thus, Claim 13 is deemed to be non-statutory.
As in Claim 14, the preamble of the claim indicates the claim pertains to a device (an ordering terminal). However, the claims recite system elements comprising a series of “operation[s]” which, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, denotes software or a computer program. Software and computer programs are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
It further appears that Applicant is attempting to claim a computer program product claim.
Claim 14 further does not recite that the computer program product comprises a computer readable medium having computer readable program instructions or code embodied thereon and configured to control a computer to perform specific functional steps. The lack of recitation of any specific computer readable medium results in a claim that recites functionally descriptive material (defined as “data structures and computer programs with impart functionality when encoded on a computer readable medium” by the Computer-Implemented Invention Guidelines) without any interrelationships between the data structure and other aspects of the invention that would permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. Dependent Claim 15 continues in the same vein also reciting “operations” and is further rejected for the reasons and basis as disclosed above. Dependent Claims 15-20 are further rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
Thus, Claims 13-20 are deemed to be non-statutory.
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Applied
Romahi (GB2626141) (“Romahi”) – discloses an RFID tag authentication system 100 for a hospitality establishment comprises a server 101 storing a secrete key and a plurality of RFID tags 103 each associated with a physical location (e.g., a table) at the hospitality establishment. (See Romahi Abstract). The tags 103 store a copy of the secret key and a tag identification number and when scanned by a customer device 104, each tag 103 encrypts its identification number. (See Romahi Abstract) The server 101 receives and decrypts the encrypted information using the secret key to retrieve the identification number and authenticates the tag 103 by confirming the identification number is valid. (See Romahi Abstract)
Buisson et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0366000) – discloses a method for communicating between an electronic tag and a computer connected to the internet, wherein the electronic tag encrypts at least part of the information to be transmitted, using a data format preserving algorithm; generates a URL comprising at least the encrypted part of the information; and transmits the URL to an NFC reader. (See Buisson Abstract)
Xu et al. (WO 2023142441A1) – discloses tag-based money receiving QR code payment method executed in a payment device. (See Xu Abstract) The method comprises scanning a money receiving QR code, so as to obtain a link; interacting with a tag apparatus on the basis of a short-distance communication mode so as to obtain security verification information and sending a payment request to a payment background on the basis of the security verification information. (See Xu Abstract)
Noh (KR20220031173A) – discloses a service branching system using a dynamic QR code related to login and QR payment and including a store’s unique ID for ordering and payment; a smart terminal equipped with a camera that scans and recognizes the QR code of the unmanned order kiosk, wherein a mobile app that encrypts and transmits user information, order information and payment information, including a user’s unique ID, according to the service branch through the scan of the QR code is installed, and an order payment integration server, which decrypts the encrypted user information, order information, and payment information transmitted from the smart terminal to identify the type of service branch, the store’s unique ID and the user’s unique ID sends user information to the unmanned order kiosk to log in to perform an order. (See Noh Abstract)
Gyeong et al. (KR20230022734A) – discloses a menu order and payment system and control method thereof where the invention comprises card readers which are provided at each table in a store and provide order web page information; a user terminal which acquires the order web page information, accesses an order web page, and selects a product through the order web page; a server which generates menu selection information corresponding to the product selected by the user terminal and generates payment information using the menu selection information and a POS machine which receives the menu selection information and the payment information included in the received payment information and receives payment. (See Gyeong Abstract)
Jeong (KR20210110554A) – discloses provision of a payment method using a QR code that includes a user terminal including a scan unit capable of scanning a QR code, and a server to which a URL is executed and accessed through the recognized QR code. (See Jeong Abstract)
Jung (KR102545739B1) – disclosing a restaurant ordering system using a QR code that includes a smart terminal in which a restaurant ordering app is installed. (See Jung Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendments addressed part of the issues raised, however did not completely resolve the issues, as noted in the rejection in chief. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 05/29/2026, pages 11-12)
As to the 112 Rejections:
Applicant’s amendments have not fully clarified the claims and 112 issue remain as fully disclosed in the rejection in chief. (Id. at pages 12-14)
Conclusion
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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 at 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 August 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights