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 .
This Office Action responds to the amendment and argument filed on July 16, 2026, in response to the Office Action mailed on May 06, 2026.
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, 5, 8–10, 12, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claims depending therefrom are likewise rejected to the extent they incorporate the indefinite limitations.
Claims 1 and 8 recite, in pertinent part: “wherein the first communicating occurs substantially simultaneously with the receiving of the payment information from the UPS ...”
The term “substantially simultaneously” is a term of degree. The claims do not identify an objective temporal tolerance, maximum delay, timing window, synchronization criterion, or other ascertainable boundary for determining when two communications are sufficiently simultaneous to satisfy the limitation.
The Office recognizes that the use of a relative term or term of degree does not, by itself, render a claim indefinite. However, where such language is employed, the specification should provide some standard for measuring the degree, or the meaning must otherwise be reasonably ascertainable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2173.05(b).
Accordingly, unless the specification provides an objective standard for “substantially simultaneously,” the scope of claims 1 and 8 is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the limitation encompasses communications separated by microseconds, milliseconds, one second, several seconds, or any delay that appears simultaneous to a human observer.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10 and 12 additionally employ expressions including: “established substantially real-time”; “communicated ... substantially real-time”; and “occurs substantially real-time with receipt.”
The phrase “substantially real-time” likewise fails, on the present claim language alone, to define an objective timing requirement. “Real-time” in computer and communication systems may encompass different latency requirements depending upon the application, network architecture, protocol, hardware and user expectations. The qualifier “substantially” further expands the uncertainty.
Absent an express definition or objective benchmark in the specification, a person of ordinary skill is not reasonably apprised of the temporal boundary separating communication that is “substantially real-time” from communication that is not. MPEP §2173.05(b) explains that the question is whether the disclosure supplies a standard for measuring a term of degree; absolute mathematical precision is unnecessary, but objective boundaries must be ascertainable.
Therefore, claims 1, 8–10 and 12 are indefinite on this basis.
Claims 1, 8 and 12 recite limitations including: “wherein each of the first through sixth authentications occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay ...” and “wherein the POS authentication operations occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay.”
The phrase “humanly perceptible delay” is particularly problematic under §112(b).
The claim does not identify: the particular human whose perception governs; whether perception is visual, auditory, tactile, or cognitive; the relevant latency threshold; environmental conditions under which perception is assessed; whether the standard is an average user, fastest observer, ordinary POS customer, or another person; or which event establishes the beginning and ending points of the perceptibility inquiry beyond the broad recited operations.
Thus, two implementations having identical computer/network performance could potentially satisfy or fail the claim depending upon the subjective perceptual ability of the observer.
Although subjective or relative terminology is not automatically indefinite, the specification must provide an objective standard by which one skilled in the art can determine the claim boundary. USPTO guidance expressly requires such an objective standard for subjective or degree-based terminology.
Accordingly, “without incurring any humanly perceptible delay” fails to particularly point out the claimed temporal boundary unless Applicant's specification expressly defines or objectively benchmarks the phrase. A clearer limitation would recite a measurable latency, for example, “within X milliseconds,” if supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 1 and 8 define a “first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC)”, claim 1 additionally defines a “second 5G direct wireless connection (2DWC),” and claim 5 recites a communications module configured to establish those connections.
The term “direct wireless connection” is unclear as presently drafted because the claims do not establish whether “direct” means: no intervening network element whatsoever;
no intervening financial-processing entity; no application-layer intermediary; a logical end-to-end session despite traversal through 5G base stations/core-network equipment; or merely direct communication between the identified endpoint applications.
That ambiguity is material in a 5G context because ordinary 5G communication between two remote endpoints necessarily may traverse radio-access and core-network infrastructure. The claim therefore creates uncertainty concerning what intervening infrastructure is permitted while the connection remains “direct.”
MPEP §2173.05(a) provides that new terminology is permissible, but its meaning must be apparent from the prior art or specification so that the metes and bounds can be determined.
Accordingly, unless the specification specifically defines “direct wireless connection,” claims 1, 5 and 8–10 are indefinite.
Claim 1 recites: “receiving, from the IBK, an auth-2 message that include one of an auth-2 approval message and an auth-2 disapproval message” and subsequently: “wherein the one of the auth-2 message and the auth-2 disapproval message is second communicated by the IBK to the UPS ...”
The second recitation is internally inconsistent with the first. In the first passage, “auth-2 message” appears to be a genus encompassing either an auth-2 approval message or an auth-2 disapproval message. In the later passage, however, “the one of the auth-2 message and the auth-2 disapproval message” treats auth-2 message and auth-2 disapproval message as alternatives.
It is therefore unclear whether the later limitation was intended to recite: “one of the auth-2 approval message and the auth-2 disapproval message” or whether “auth-2 message” is itself intended to identify a third type of message.
This ambiguity prevents one of ordinary skill from determining the scope with reasonable certainty and is therefore indefinite under §112(b). See MPEP §§2173.02 and 2173.05(a).
Claim 1 states: “wherein each of the first through sixth authentications occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay ...”
However, the claim does not clearly recite a continuously numbered set of six authentications.
The claim expressly identifies: a first POS authentication process; a second POS authentication process; an auth-2 message; an auth-3; a fourth authentication (auth-4);
a fifth POS authentication process; a sixth POS authentication process; and an auth-6.
These labels mix authentication processes with authentication messages. Moreover, an expressly identified first authentication (auth-1) and fifth authentication (auth-5) are not recited in claim 1 itself. Thus, it is unclear what exact six things are encompassed by “each of the first through sixth authentications.”
The uncertainty is substantive because the “no humanly perceptible delay” requirement is imposed on those six unidentified authentication events. Claim 1 therefore fails to clearly establish the temporal endpoints/events to which this limitation applies.
Claim 13 recites: “wherein the query is communicated simultaneously with receipt, by the IBK, of a request to approve the given transaction; and wherein the first response is received simultaneously with receipt, by the UPS, of the query.”
The second clause is unclear because it states that the IBK's receipt of the first response occurs simultaneously with the UPS's receipt of the query, notwithstanding that the UPS ordinarily must first receive the query before generating and communicating the response.
If literal simultaneity is intended, the claim appears to require the response to arrive at the IBK at the same instant the query arrives at the UPS. If “simultaneously” instead means approximately, concurrently, or within a permissible latency interval, no interval is recited.
Accordingly, the claim fails to provide reasonably ascertainable temporal boundaries.
Claim 12 introduces: “a first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC)”
Claim 18, depending from claim 12, subsequently recites: “communicating the first query to the UPS using the first 5GWC; receiving the first response from the UPS using the first 5GWC ...”
Claim 18 does not expressly introduce a “first 5GWC.” Its parent claim instead introduces a “1DWC.”
Therefore it is unclear whether: “the first 5GWC” means the previously recited 1DWC;
“first 5GWC” is a separate connection not otherwise introduced; or “1DWC” and “5GWC” are intended as interchangeable nomenclature.
Where a claim refers to an element using terminology that does not clearly correspond to a previously introduced element, a lack-of-antecedent-basis rejection is appropriate where the resulting scope is unclear. MPEP §2173.05(e). Accordingly, claim 18 is indefinite.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following analysis is made pursuant to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and the USPTO subject-matter-eligibility framework set forth in MPEP §2106, including the 2024 Guidance Update. The Office evaluates each claim as a whole and provides an explanation for each portion of the Step 2 analysis.
I. Step 1 — Statutory Categories
Independent claim 1 recites a POS device and therefore nominally falls within the statutory machine category.
Independent claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions and therefore nominally falls within the statutory manufacture category.
Independent claim 12 recites an issuing-bank system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and hardware processor and therefore nominally falls within the statutory machine category.
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–11, and 13–20 retain the respective statutory categories of the claims from which they depend. Accordingly, claims 1–20 satisfy Step 1, and examination proceeds to Step 2A.
II. Step 2A, Prong One — Whether the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception
A. Independent claim 1 recites, in substance, a process for authenticating and approving a payment transaction between a customer and merchant by obtaining payment information, obtaining multiple authentication results from financial institutions, verifying transaction/device locations, approving or rejecting the transaction, and completing the transaction based upon the authorization result.
More specifically, claim 1 recites: receiving payment information from the user's payment system; communicating the payment information to an issuing bank; requesting approval of the payment information; receiving an approval or disapproval; verifying the POS location with an acquiring bank; receiving authentication of the POS location; receiving authentication indicating verification of the user's location; communicating authentication information to the acquiring bank; receiving approval or rejection of the requested transaction from the issuing bank; and completing the requested transaction according to whether approval is received.
These limitations recite the fundamental commercial activity of authorizing and completing a financial transaction based upon verification of payment credentials and transaction conditions.
The limitations therefore fall within the enumerated abstract-idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions, including sales activities, business relations and transactions between people or entities. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
The claimed verification of whether the customer/device and POS locations satisfy the conditions for authorization does not change the character of the underlying activity. Rather, location information constitutes an additional condition used in determining whether the commercial payment transaction should be authorized.
The Office does not characterize the 5G communications themselves as the abstract idea. Those limitations are addressed below as additional elements under Prong Two.
B. Independent claim 8 similarly recites instructions for:
“directly receiving payment information from a user payment system (UPS)”;
“communicating the payment information to an issuing bank (IBK)”;
“requesting approval, from the IBK, of the payment information”; and
“receiving, from the IBK, an auth-2 message that include one of an auth-2 approval message and an auth-2 disapproval message.”
These limitations describe the collection, transmission, authorization and approval/disapproval of payment information as part of a commercial payment transaction.
Accordingly, claim 8 recites the same abstract commercial interaction.
C. Independent claim 12 recites: “communicating ... a first query to the UPS” requesting information concerning a transaction between the UPS and POS; “receiving a first response ... wherein the first response includes a current user determined location (UDL)”;
“receiving a POS device location (PDL)”; “determining whether the UDL corresponds to the PDL”; and “approving a given transaction when the UDL corresponds to the PDL.”
The claim therefore conditions approval of a commercial payment transaction upon verification that the customer's location corresponds to the POS location. Such transaction authorization remains a commercial interaction falling within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The determination whether two locations correspond is part of the criteria used to determine whether the commercial transaction is approved; the claim does not recite a particular technological technique for calculating geographic position or technically improving location determination.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
III. Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
The USPTO's 2024 Guidance emphasizes that a claimed technological improvement may establish integration into a practical application. Example 47 illustrates the distinction: merely using an ANN to perform an abstract analysis was ineligible, whereas applying the result in a particular manner that improved network security integrated the exception into a practical application.
The amended claims therefore cannot properly be rejected merely by stating that 5G communications constitute generic computer implementation.
A. Claim 1 — 5G and real-time limitations
In addition to the abstract commercial transaction, claim 1 recites: “a non-transitory computer readable medium”; “a POS hardware processor”; a user payment system;
an issuing bank; an acquiring bank; a POS;
a “first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC)”;
a “second 5G direct wireless connection (2DWC)”;
communications occurring “substantially real-time”;
communications occurring “substantially simultaneously”; and
the authentications occurring “without incurring any humanly perceptible delay.”
Considered individually and in combination, these additional elements do not, on the present claim language, integrate the commercial transaction into a practical application.
1. The claimed 5G connections
The 1DWC is employed to communicate payment/authentication information between the POS and issuing bank. The 2DWC is employed to communicate authentication information between the POS and acquiring bank.
The claim does not recite a new 5G protocol, radio-interface technique, resource-allocation procedure, packet structure, handover technique, network slicing mechanism, latency-control algorithm, modulation technique, error-control mechanism, security protocol, or other modification to operation of the 5G network.
Instead, the claim specifies 5G as the communications environment through which the financial-authentication information is transported.
Thus, the 5G limitation places the abstract commercial transaction within a particular technological environment rather than reciting an improvement in that technology.
2. “Direct” connections
Likewise, requiring the POS to communicate through identified “direct” connections to the IBK and ABK specifies the communication path used to implement the payment authentication process.
The claim does not recite how the direct connection itself is technically established or maintained in a manner improving network operation.
3. Substantially real-time/simultaneous operation
The requirements that communications occur “substantially simultaneously” or “substantially real-time” impose timing requirements on performance of the financial-authentication process.
They do not recite a particular technological mechanism by which network latency is reduced or simultaneous processing is achieved. The result sought is faster execution of the payment-authentication transaction, rather than an identified improvement to the functioning of the computer or communications network itself.
4. No humanly perceptible delay
The limitation requiring: “each of the first through sixth authentications [to] occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay” likewise specifies a desired result or performance characteristic.
The claim does not recite a particular network architecture, scheduling technique, caching procedure, edge-computing mechanism, protocol alteration, parallel-processing technique, or other technical implementation that causes the recited absence of perceptible delay.
Thus, the limitation improves the speed at which the commercial authentication process is experienced, but the claim does not recite how the underlying computer or network technology is itself improved.
5. Location authentication
The UDL and PDL authentication limitations likewise use computer/network technology to determine whether the commercial transaction satisfies an authorization condition.
The claim does not improve GPS, cellular positioning, geolocation computation, or another location-determination technology. Rather, existing location information is used as another criterion for deciding whether the payment transaction should be authorized.
Considering all additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claimed POS, UPS, processor, banks, 5G connections, location information, authentication messages, and timing requirements implement the underlying payment-authorization process electronically and rapidly.
The claim therefore does not recite an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field comparable to the technological application discussed in eligible Claim 3 of USPTO Example 47. The 2024 examples emphasize that a claim must be assessed as a whole and that merely applying an exception in a technological environment differs from applying it in a manner that actually improves technology.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
IV. Claim 8 — Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 8 adds to the payment-authorization abstract idea a non-transitory computer-readable medium, POS processor, UPS, IBK and: “a first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC) established substantially real-time between the POS and the IBK”;
together with the requirement that: “the POS authentication operations occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay.”
For substantially the reasons explained with respect to claim 1, these limitations specify where, over what communication technology, and how rapidly the commercial authentication process is performed, but do not recite a particular improvement to 5G communication technology.
The claim does not recite the technological means responsible for reducing latency or improving network operation. Accordingly, claim 8 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
V. Claim 12 — Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 12 similarly adds an IBK hardware processor, computer-readable medium and:
“a first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC)”; and requires:
“each of the IBK authentication operations [to] occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay.”
The claimed 5G connection is used to transmit the query and response associated with the commercial authorization process.
The UDL/PDL comparison is used to decide whether to approve the payment transaction.
No particular improvement to 5G networking, POS technology, geolocation technology, or computer operation is recited. The claim therefore applies the abstract transaction-authorization process using a particular communication environment and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
VI. Dependent Claims 2–7
The dependent claims do not alter the Prong Two determination.
Claim 2 further requires that the payment information include credit-card information presented by the user. This more narrowly defines the commercial transaction and therefore further confines the abstract idea to a particular type of payment.
Claim 3 requires authentication of a UPS-determined location. This adds another criterion for deciding whether the commercial transaction should be authorized but does not improve location-determination technology.
Claim 4 requires the ABK to communicate auth-3 and PDL information to the IBK, the IBK to determine whether UDL and PDL match, and the IBK to communicate auth-5 when they match. These limitations allocate the commercial authentication functions among the participants and computers involved in processing the payment but do not recite an improvement in those computers or networks.
Claim 5 requires a communications module configured to establish the 1DWC and 2DWC. The communications module provides the technological mechanism through which the claimed commercial-authentication information is transmitted, but the claim does not recite a technological improvement to that module or to establishing a 5G connection.
Claim 6 requires credit-account information, a virtual payment device, a passcode, communication of the account information/passcode to the issuing bank, and approval when the passcode corresponds to the account information. These limitations constitute additional commercial/security conditions for authorizing access to the payment account.
Claim 7 limits auth-3 to approval for use of the payment information within a determined geographic area. This represents another condition governing authorization of the commercial transaction and does not recite an improvement to geolocation technology.
Accordingly, claims 2–7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
VII. Dependent Claims 9–11
Claim 9 requires verifying the current POS-determined location with the acquiring bank over the second 5G direct wireless connection and receiving auth-4 authenticating that location. As with claim 1, the 5G connection transports the authentication information but is not itself technologically improved.
Claim 10 requires receiving auth-3 from the UPS and substantially-real-time communication of auth-3/auth-4 to the acquiring bank using the second 5G direct wireless connection. This imposes speed and routing requirements upon the payment-authentication transaction without reciting how 5G communication itself is improved.
Claim 11 requires awaiting auth-6 providing approval/rejection and completing the requested transaction depending upon receipt or withholding of auth-6. This constitutes the ultimate commercial authorization decision. Claims 9–11 therefore remain directed to the abstract idea.
VIII. Dependent Claims 13–20
Claim 13 requires substantially simultaneous processing of the query, transaction-approval request and response. This specifies the timing of the commercial authentication without reciting a technical mechanism producing the simultaneous operation.
Claim 14 communicates approval to a clearing system for credit-card transaction processing. Clearing a credit-card transaction is itself part of the commercial financial transaction.
Claim 15 determines whether the UPS is authorized within a geographic area and communicates geographic-area approval. This adds a geographic authorization condition to the transaction.
Claim 16 communicates that geographic-area approval from the UPS to the POS. This constitutes transmission of information used in the commercial authorization process.
Claim 17 specifies that the UPS is a smartphone. Merely restricting the abstract process to implementation using a smartphone does not provide a technological improvement.
Claim 18 recites multiple 5G connections coupling the IBK, POS, ABK and UPS and specifies which connections transport particular authentication information. Considered as a whole, this claim is closer to a technological implementation than the other dependent claims. Nevertheless, it still does not recite a new network architecture or a technological technique for operating those 5G links. Instead, it assigns known financial-authentication communications to specified 5G communication paths. Thus, it restricts the technological environment in which the payment-authentication process occurs rather than improving that environment.
Claim 19 requires transaction approval when at least two of user-device authentication, passcode authentication, UPS-location authentication and POS-location authentication succeed. This is a multi-factor rule for determining whether the commercial transaction should be approved.
Claim 20 requires at least one authentication process to occur simultaneously with communication of the first query. The limitation again specifies timing of the commercial authentication process without reciting a technological technique responsible for accomplishing the timing.
Accordingly, claims 13–20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
IX. Step 2B — Inventive Concept / Significantly More
Because claims 1–20 recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that exception into a practical application, the claims are evaluated under Step 2B to determine whether they contain additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claimed additional elements include processors, computer-readable media, POS devices, smartphones/user payment systems, issuing-bank/acquiring-bank systems, communications modules, electronic messages, geographic-location information, and 5G wireless communication links.
The recited processors and computer-readable media perform information-processing operations associated with the payment transaction. The POS, smartphone/UPS, IBK and ABK provide the instrumentalities through which the payment transaction is initiated, authenticated and approved.
The 5G links provide the communications channels over which the transaction/authentication information is exchanged.
Even considered in the claimed ordered combination, these elements implement the abstract commercial transaction by: receiving to communicating to authenticating to comparing to approving/rejecting to completing the payment transaction.
The claims do not recite an unconventional technological mechanism for accomplishing those operations.
Here, however, the rejection need not rest solely upon an unsupported assertion that “5G is conventional.” The principal deficiency is that the claims use 5G communication as the vehicle for performing the abstract financial-authentication process, without claiming a technological technique that changes or improves operation of the 5G system itself.
The claimed ordered combination similarly does not produce an inventive concept distinct from implementation of the abstract payment-authentication arrangement.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over McGuinness et al., US 2014/0012688 A1 (“McGuinness”), in view of Niedermeyer, US 2003/0169881 A1 (“Niedermeyer”), and further in view of Sodano, US 2021/0029540 A1 (“Sodano”).
With respect to claim 1, McGuinness discloses “A point of sale (POS) device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing POS non-transitory computer instructions (POSIs) for facilitating POS authentication operations; and a POS hardware processor executing the POSIs, which configure the POS to perform the POS authentication operations”, by disclosing POS devices 104 including payment terminals 106, ECRs, pin pads and readers interconnected with system server 100 and financial-transaction-processing infrastructure (McGuinness ¶¶[0019]–[0028], Fig. 1);
“a first POS authentication process including: first directly receiving payment information from a user payment system (UPS)”, McGuinness discloses mobile communicator 118 storing/payment-account information including credit-card, bank-account and wallet information and further expressly discloses communicating a payment identifier directly from mobile communicator 118 to POS device 104 by NFC, Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi (McGuinness ¶¶[0031]–[0035], [0041], Figs. 2A–2E);
“a second POS authentication process including: first communicating the payment information to an issuing bank (IBK) associated with the credit information”, McGuinness discloses system server 100 interfacing with financial transaction processor servers 120, which communicate with financial institutions including banks and credit-card companies, and teaches completing payment using payment terminal 106 communicating with financial transaction processor servers 120 (McGuinness ¶¶[0021]–[0026], payment-processing embodiment of Figs. 2F–2G);
Regarding the newly added limitation: “utilizes a first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC) established substantially real-time between the POS and the IBK”, McGuinness teaches the POS-to-financial-processing/bank communication path (McGuinness ¶¶[0021]–[0026]); Sodano teaches that transaction-authentication components—including a POS terminal 107, transaction authentication server 110, processing server 104 and mobile device 103—are communicatively coupled through a high-generation cellular network 102, specifically 5G. Sodano expressly states that 5G provides high-speed transmission, increased bandwidth and low latency, and permits maintaining reliable communication channels for authentication. It further teaches that connections between components may be direct or indirect, wired or wireless (Sodano, Fig. 1 and corresponding detailed-description discussion; claims 5–6, 15–17). Sodano expressly identifies POS terminal 107 as a component of the 5G authentication environment.
With respect to “requesting approval, from the IBK, of the payment information; and second receiving, from the IBK, an auth-2 message that include one of an auth-2 approval message and an auth-2 disapproval message”, McGuinness teaches processing payment through financial institutions, while Niedermeyer teaches permitting or preventing the requested financial transaction according to authentication results. Sodano expressly teaches receiving a request to approve a transaction, authenticating the transaction and transmitting an approval (Sodano, Fig. 3, steps 202–208; claims 1, 11, 16 and 19).
With respect to the feature, “wherein the first communicating occurs substantially simultaneously with the receiving of the payment information from the UPS”, Niedermeyer teaches substantially simultaneous transaction/location processing, and Sodano expressly strengthens this teaching by requiring substantially-real-time processing occurring simultaneously with submission of a financial transaction. Sodano's claim 1 expressly requires updating transaction-authentication information “substantially in real-time” and that such updating occur “simultaneously with a submission of the transaction.” Sodano further describes timing diagrams for real-time authentication (Sodano, Figs. 3–5; claims 1, 16 and 19);
“a fourth POS authentication process including: verifying with an acquiring bank (ABK) a current POS determined location (PDL) for the POS”, Niedermeyer discloses obtaining merchant/POS transaction location, obtaining the user's independently determined location, comparing the locations and conditioning transaction authorization upon the comparison.
With respect to the feature, “third receiving, via the 2DWC and from the ABK, a fourth authentication (auth-4); wherein the auth-4 authenticates the PDL”, Niedermeyer teaches verifying merchant/POS location in the transaction-authentication process, while Sodano teaches using 5G-derived location information for transaction authentication because the smaller 5G cells improve location accuracy (Sodano, 5G location-authentication discussion; claims 2, 4, 9, 12–14).
With respect to the feature, “a fifth POS authentication process including: fourth receiving a third authentication (auth-3) from the UPS; wherein the auth-3 indicates a current location for the UPS has been verified by the IBK”, Niedermeyer teaches authentication using the user's current mobile-device location; Sodano likewise teaches determining a mobile-device geographic location and matching it against location information associated with the transaction before approving the transaction (Sodano, Fig. 3, steps 202–208; claims 2, 4, 9 and 12–14).
With respect to the feature, “third communicating the auth-3 and the auth-4 to the ABK; wherein the third communicating occurs substantially real-time with receipt by the POS of the auth-3 from the UPS and utilizes the 2DWC”, Niedermeyer teaches exchanging location/authentication information among transaction-processing components, while Sodano teaches near-real-time exchange of authentication data over multiple communication channels and expressly attributes that capability to the high bandwidth, low latency and transmission rates of 5G (Sodano, Figs. 3–5).
With respect to the feature, “a sixth POS authentication process including: fifth receiving via the 1DWC, of a sixth authentication (auth-6) from the IBK; wherein the auth-6 provides an approval or a rejection, by the IBK, of a requested transaction between the UPS and the POS”, Niedermeyer teaches transaction authorization conditioned upon successful location authentication, and Sodano expressly teaches receiving a transaction-approval request, matching authentication information and sending approval of the transaction (Sodano, Fig. 3, steps 202–208; claims 1, 11 and 19);
Finally, with respect to the feature, “completing the requested transaction, based on whether the auth-6 is received from the IBK or withheld by the IBK,” Niedermeyer teaches permitting completion upon successful authentication and preventing the transaction otherwise, and Sodano teaches transmitting transaction approval following successful matching/authentication (Sodano, Fig. 3, step 208; claims 1, 11, 16 and 19).
With respect to the feature, “wherein the one of the auth-2 message and the auth-2 disapproval message is second communicated by the IBK to the UPS substantially real-time via the 1DWC”, Sodano expressly teaches transmitting authentication commands/results over the high-generation network and near-real-time exchange of authentication data over multiple communication channels, enabled by 5G's high bandwidth and low latency (Sodano, Figs. 3–5; 5G real-time authentication discussion);
With respect to the feature, “wherein the verifying utilizes a second 5G direct wireless connection (2DWC) established substantially real-time between the ABK and the POS”, the conventional POS/acquirer financial communication is supplied by the payment references, while Sodano teaches substituting/using 5G communication in financial-transaction authentication because its high bandwidth, multiple simultaneous communication channels and low latency permit near-real-time authentication. Sodano specifically includes a POS terminal 107 in the high-generation cellular-network environment (Sodano, Fig. 1);
With respect to the feature, “wherein each of the first through sixth authentications occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay between the first receiving and the fifth receiving”. Sodano identifies human intervention as causing costly and delayed responses, expressly seeks authentication “in real-time” without burdening users, teaches multiple simultaneous communication channels, and states that 5G provides high-speed data transmission, increased bandwidth and low latency, permitting the system to operate with speed and seamlessness. Sodano further characterizes the disclosed authentication as near-real-time authentication of events and exchange of data and communications between devices over multiple communication channels (Sodano, Figs. 3–5 and corresponding 5G/low-latency discussion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the location-responsive electronic-payment system of McGuinness, as supplemented by Niedermeyer's location-comparison authentication and Bozeman's financial-authentication infrastructure, to employ Sodano's 5G communication techniques for the authentication communications.
Sodano itself provides the express technological reason for doing so: 5G provides high-speed data transmission, increased bandwidth, improved location accuracy and low latency, supports multiple simultaneous communication channels, and thereby enables real-time financial-transaction authentication without burdening the user. Thus, using Sodano's 5G communication technology for the known POS/bank authentication messages would have constituted the application of a known technique to a known device/system ready for improvement, yielding the predictable results of reduced authentication latency, improved location accuracy and faster transaction authorization. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
With respect to Claim 2 limitation “wherein the payment information includes information for a credit card presented by a user associated with the UPS to the POS,” McGuinness expressly teaches payment-account information including a credit-card account and presentation/use of a mobile communicator at POS device 104 (McGuinness ¶¶[0031]–[0035], [0041]).
With respect to Claim 3 limitation “wherein the auth-3 is received when a third authentication process, performed between the UPS and the IBK, authenticates a UPS determined location (UDL),” Niedermeyer teaches obtaining/authenticating the user's independently determined mobile-device location, while Sodano expressly teaches using geographic location measured by the user's mobile device as authentication information supplied over a 5G network (Sodano claims 1–2, 6, 9 and 12).
Claim 4. With respect to “wherein the ABK, when the PDL is reconfirmed, communicates the auth-3 and the PDL to the IBK; wherein the IBK determines whether the UDL and the PDL match; and wherein, when the UDL and PDL match, the IBK communicates a fifth authentication (auth-5) to the UPS,” Niedermeyer teaches comparing merchant/POS transaction location with the independently determined user/mobile-device location and permitting the transaction upon a match. Sodano likewise expressly compares a first geographic location associated with the transaction with a second geographic location measured by the user's mobile device and transmits approval upon confirmation of the match (Sodano Fig. 3, steps 202–208; claim 12).
Claim 5. With respect to “a communications module, coupled to the POS hardware processor, configured to establish the 1DWC between the POS and the IBK and the 2DWC between the POS and the ABK,” McGuinness provides the POS-to-financial-institution communication architecture and Sodano provides communication interfaces operating in a 5G authentication environment, including POS terminal 107 and financial authentication/processing servers (Sodano Fig. 1; claims 1, 5–7).
Claim 6. With respect to the complete limitation concerning credit account information (CAI), a virtual payment device, a CA passcode, communicating the CAI/passcode to the IBK, and generating approval when the passcode corresponds to the CAI, McGuinness teaches mobile-wallet payment-account information, including credit-card/bank-account information, and an account-verification code transmitted from mobile communicator 118 for verification (McGuinness ¶¶[0031]–[0035]); Bozeman further teaches account/PIN-based authentication.
Claim 7. With respect to “wherein the auth-3 may include an approval by the IBK for use of the payment information, by the UPS, within a determined geographic area,” Niedermeyer teaches permissible/impermissible geographic areas for payment use, while Sodano expressly teaches a geographic location or bounded geographic area as authentication information (Sodano claims 2–4, 9 and 12–14).
Claims 2–7 therefore would have been obvious for substantially the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over McGuinness et al., US 2014/0012688 A1 (“McGuinness”), in view of Niedermeyer, US 2003/0169881 A1 (“Niedermeyer”), further in view of US 2013/0117183 A1 (“Bozeman”), and further in view of Sodano, US 2021/0029540 A1 (“Sodano”).
For claim 8, McGuinness in view of Bozeman teaches the complete computer-readable-medium/POS implementation and the underlying steps of directly receiving payment information from a UPS; communicating the payment information to an issuing bank; requesting approval; and receiving an approval or disapproval. Sodano supplies the amendment requiring that the communication occur substantially simultaneously using 5G, expressly teaching 5G financial-transaction authentication, substantially-real-time processing simultaneous with transaction submission, POS terminal 107, and low-latency communications (Sodano Fig. 1; Figs. 3–5; claims 1, 5–6, 16–19).
Sodano additionally supplies the technological teaching underlying “wherein the POS authentication operations occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay” by expressly identifying delayed human intervention as undesirable and teaching seamless, real-time transaction authentication using 5G's high speed, multiple simultaneous channels and low latency.
For claim 9, Niedermeyer teaches the complete substantive operation of verifying the current POS/merchant location and conditioning authentication upon that location, and Sodano teaches employing 5G location information and low-latency communication for real-time transaction authentication (Sodano Fig. 1; claims 2–6, 12–16).
For claim 10, Niedermeyer teaches communicating user-location and merchant/POS-location authentication information in the transaction process, while Sodano teaches that the exchange occurs near-real-time over multiple communication channels enabled by 5G's high bandwidth and low latency (Sodano Figs. 3–5).
For claim 11, Niedermeyer teaches receiving the authorization result and completing/permitting the requested transaction when the authentication succeeds, and Sodano expressly teaches sending transaction approval after matching authentication/location information (Sodano Fig. 3, step 208; claims 1, 11, 16 and 19).
Claims 8–11 therefore would have been obvious for the same KSR rationale: substitution of Sodano's known 5G real-time/low-latency communication technique into the known electronic-payment authentication system predictably improves authentication speed, communication capacity and location accuracy.
Claims 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over McGuinness et al., US 2014/0012688 A1 (“McGuinness”), in view of Niedermeyer, US 2003/0169881 A1 (“Niedermeyer”), further in view of US 2013/0117183 A1 (“Bozeman”), and further in view of Sodano, US 2021/0029540 A1 (“Sodano”).
For claim 12, the combination teaches “an issuing bank (IBK) system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing IBK non-transitory computer instructions (IBKIs) ... and an IBK hardware processor executing the IBKIs” through the financial transaction/authentication servers of McGuinness and Bozeman.
Regarding “first communicating, using a first fifth generation (5G) direct wireless connection (1DWC) a first query to the UPS; wherein the first query requests, from the UPS, information regarding a presented transaction between the UPS and a point of sale (POS) device,” Sodano expressly teaches an authentication server transmitting a request/command to the user's mobile device over a high-generation/5G network in connection with approval of a financial transaction (Sodano Figs. 3–5; claims 5–7, 16–17).
Regarding “receiving a first response, via the 1DWC, from the UPS to the query; wherein the first response includes a current user determined location (UDL),” Sodano expressly teaches establishing the 5G data connection and receiving mobile-device sensor data including the geographic location of the mobile device substantially in real time (Sodano claims 1–2, 5–9, 11, 13, 15–17).
Regarding “receiving a POS device location (PDL); determining whether the UDL corresponds to the PDL; and last approving a given transaction when the UDL corresponds to the PDL,” Niedermeyer teaches comparison of independently determined user/device location with merchant/POS transaction location. Sodano independently teaches comparing geographic location associated with the transaction with geographic location measured by the user's mobile device and transmitting approval when the values match (Sodano Fig. 3, steps 202–208; claim 12).
Regarding “wherein each of the IBK authentication operations occur without incurring any humanly perceptible delay between the first communicating and the last approving operations,” Sodano expressly identifies human intervention/delayed response as a problem and teaches seamless, real-time authentication enabled by 5G's high data rate, multiple simultaneous channels and low latency.
For claim 13, Sodano expressly teaches authentication information being updated “substantially in real-time” and “simultaneously with a submission of the transaction,” thereby strongly supporting the claimed simultaneous query/transaction-request processing (Sodano claims 1, 11, 16 and 19; Fig. 4).
For claim 14, Bozeman teaches “communicating an approval for the given transaction to a clearing system (CS) for a credit card transaction processing system” through its disclosed authorization, clearing and settlement infrastructure.
For claim 15, Niedermeyer teaches determining whether the user's payment device is permitted for use within a prescribed geographical region, while Sodano teaches authentication using a geographic or bounded geographic area associated with the user/mobile device (Sodano claims 2–4).
For claim 16, Niedermeyer in view of McGuinness teaches communicating the resulting location-based authorization to the user/mobile payment device and POS system.
For claim 17, McGuinness teaches mobile communicator 118 and Sodano expressly teaches that the mobile device is a smartphone (Sodano claim 10).
For amended claim 18, McGuinness and Bozeman supply the conventional IBK/POS/ABK/UPS transaction-network relationships. Sodano teaches connecting POS terminal 107, mobile device 103, transaction-processing server 104 and transaction-authentication server 110 through a high-generation cellular network 102; expressly identifies that network as 5G; and teaches multiple simultaneous communication channels, high transmission rates and low latency (Sodano Fig. 1 and corresponding 5G discussion). It therefore would have been obvious to employ the known 5G network for each of the existing financial-system communication links where real-time authentication is desired.
For claim 19, the combination teaches “approving the given transaction when two or more of a user device authentication process, a passcode authentication process, a UPS location authentication process, and a POS location authentication process are successful.” McGuinness supplies payment-account/account-verification authentication, Niedermeyer supplies mobile-user and POS-location authentication, Bozeman supplies passcode/PIN authentication, and Sodano teaches enhanced/two-factor transaction authentication combining current mobile-device information with transaction information.
For claim 20, Sodano provides particularly strong additional disclosure because its claimed updating/authentication occurs substantially in real time and simultaneously with submission of the transaction, while its specification teaches simultaneous communication channels for real-time transaction authentication (Sodano claims 1, 11, 16 and 19; Figs. 3–5).
Accordingly, claims 12–20 would have been obvious over the combination for substantially the reasons stated for independent claim 12.
The combination is not based merely upon the fact that the individual elements could have been combined. The references provide an articulated reason for doing so.
McGuinness supplies a location-responsive POS/mobile-payment architecture and expressly communicates with financial institutions. Niedermeyer supplies the fraud-prevention technique of comparing independently determined customer/device location with merchant/POS location before authorizing the payment. Bozeman supplies additional bank-side authentication, authorization and clearing functionality. Sodano specifically teaches improving financial-transaction authentication—including transactions at a POS—using 5G because 5G provides greater location accuracy, higher data rates, multiple simultaneous communication channels, increased bandwidth and low latency.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ Sodano's 5G communication technique for the communication links of the combined McGuinness/Niedermeyer/’183 payment-authentication system in order to reduce authentication latency, support substantially simultaneous authentication exchanges, increase location accuracy, avoid delayed human intervention, and obtain faster transaction authorization. This constitutes the use of a known technique to improve similar devices and methods in the same way and would have yielded no more than the predictable advantages expressly attributed by Sodano to 5G.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in response to the Office Action dated May 6, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Applicant argues, in substance, that: (1) the presently claimed operations have not historically been performed in commercial settings in the specifically claimed time period; (2) the claimed 5G wireless communication links permit the multiple authentications to occur without any humanly perceptible delay; (3) the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind and therefore do not recite a mental process; (4) the claimed arrangement improves transaction processing by reducing delay, increasing security, and avoiding intermediary systems; and (5) the claims therefore integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and/or recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.
The arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed below.
I. Applicant's argument concerning the “mental process” grouping is acknowledged, but does not overcome the rejection
Applicant argues that the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind because the recited operations include multiple electronic authentications, 5G communications, and operations performed without humanly perceptible delay.
The Office agrees, for purposes of this response, that the amended claims need not be characterized as reciting a mental-process abstract idea.
Under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III), a claim limitation does not fall within the mental-process grouping merely because a human could conceptually understand the operation; the limitation must be capable of being practically performed in the human mind. The amended claims expressly require communications among a POS, user payment system, issuing bank, and acquiring bank over recited wireless communication links. Such operations are not practically performed mentally.
Accordingly, to the extent the prior Office Action relied upon the mental-process grouping based on “determining whether locations correspond,” that characterization is not necessary to maintain the rejection.
However, Applicant's conclusion that the §101 inquiry therefore “ends” at Step 2A, Prong One is incorrect.
The claims independently recite a separate recognized abstract-idea grouping: certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions involving payment authorization and financial transactions. The USPTO framework requires examination of each applicable judicial-exception grouping; eliminating one proposed grouping does not establish eligibility if another enumerated abstract idea remains recited. The current MPEP expressly requires examiners to identify the judicial exception actually recited and then evaluate the additional elements under Prong Two.
Thus, even assuming Applicant is correct that the claims do not recite a mental process, the rejection remains because the claims recite a commercial interaction.
II. The amended claims continue to recite a “certain method of organizing human activity”
Applicant argues that the claimed operations have allegedly never before been performed “without any humanly perceptible delay,” and therefore cannot constitute a fundamental economic practice or method of organizing human activity.
This argument is not persuasive because the Step 2A, Prong One inquiry does not turn on whether the precise claimed implementation, timing, or communication technology was historically performed by humans.
Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the claim recites subject matter falling within one of the enumerated abstract-idea groupings.
Claim 1 recites, among other things: receiving payment information from a user payment system; communicating the payment information to an issuing bank; requesting approval of the payment information; receiving approval or disapproval; verifying the POS location; receiving authentication of the user's location; transmitting authentication information; receiving transaction approval or rejection; and completing the requested transaction based upon the authorization result.
Taken together, these limitations recite the commercial activity of authenticating, approving, and completing a payment transaction between a purchaser and merchant through financial institutions.
That activity falls squarely within the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity—commercial interactions, including sales activities, business relations, and transactions between persons or entities.
Applicant's assertion that the particular sequence allegedly operates faster than prior arrangements does not remove the underlying commercial interaction from Prong One. Novelty and eligibility are separate inquiries. A claimed abstract commercial arrangement does not cease to recite an abstract idea merely because Applicant alleges that no one previously implemented it with the same speed or network technology.
Accordingly, the Office maintains that independent claims 1, 8, and 12 recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
III. Applicant's asserted 5G implementation is considered under Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a practical application because the claims now require multiple 5G communication links that permit the authentication operations to occur “without any humanly perceptible delay.”
The Office has reconsidered the claims as amended and, consistent with the 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, has evaluated the alleged technological improvement as part of the claim as a whole.
The 2024 Guidance confirms that technological subject matter is not excluded merely because an abstract idea is involved. A claim may be eligible where the additional elements apply the exception in a manner that produces an actual improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. The USPTO's 2024 examples specifically distinguish between merely using technology to perform an abstract analysis and applying the exception in a manner that improves technology itself.
Applicant's claimed improvement does not meet that standard.
A. The claims do not recite an improvement to 5G technology
Applicant states that “by utilizing multiple 5G communications links, the various recited authentications may be performed at a speed unheard of using conventional systems.”
However, the claims do not recite any improvement to: a 5G radio-access network; resource scheduling; network slicing; packet routing; channel allocation; handover; modulation; coding;
latency-control protocols; bandwidth allocation; edge computing; authentication protocol design at the telecommunications layer; or any other specific operation of the 5G network itself.
Instead, the claims employ 5G links as the communications medium for transmitting financial-authentication information among the POS, UPS, IBK, and ABK.
Claim 1, for example, requires that payment information and authentication messages be communicated over a first and second 5G direct wireless connection. The function being accomplished remains the commercial function of approving or rejecting a payment transaction.
Thus, the claims do not improve how 5G operates. They use 5G to perform the abstract commercial activity more rapidly.
Merely performing an abstract process with a faster communications technology does not, without more, establish an improvement to the functioning of that technology.
IV. “Without any humanly perceptible delay” is a result, not a recited technological mechanism
Applicant places significant emphasis on the requirement that the authentications occur:
“without incurring any humanly perceptible delay.”
Applicant argues that this distinguishes the claimed invention from existing payment processing, which allegedly requires five or more seconds.
The argument is not persuasive under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The claims recite the desired performance result—absence of a humanly perceptible delay—but do not recite the technological mechanism by which that result is achieved apart from specifying use of 5G communication links.
The claims do not specify, for example: a latency budget; a maximum network delay;
a particular parallel-processing arrangement; an asynchronous authentication protocol; a network-edge authentication process; bypass routing; a reduced-hop topology; pre-authentication; caching of authorization credentials; predictive authentication; particular message sequencing that eliminates round trips; or any other concrete technical procedure that causes the recited lack of perceptible delay.
The claim therefore states the desired outcome while leaving implementation to the recited general-purpose network and financial-processing components.
An improvement in the speed with which an abstract business transaction is completed is not necessarily an improvement in computer or network functionality.
The pertinent question under Prong Two is not whether the claimed system is faster than a prior business process, but whether the claim recites a specific technological improvement in the manner required by the eligibility framework. It does not.
V. Applicant's efficiency argument does not establish a technological improvement
Applicant further argues that reducing transaction-authentication delay: “facilitates more efficient utilization of otherwise time limited point of sale terminals such as those at gas stations, convenience stores, and otherwise.”
The argument is not persuasive. Increased throughput or more efficient utilization of a commercial POS terminal resulting from faster transaction authorization constitutes an improvement to the business operation or commercial use of the terminal, rather than an improvement to the technological operation of the POS terminal itself.
These claims do not change how the POS processor functions, how its memory operates, how the wireless interface processes signals, or how the terminal itself technically performs its computing operations. Rather, the alleged benefit is that customers can complete financial transactions more quickly. Such a business efficiency does not, by itself, integrate the abstract commercial interaction into a practical application.
VI. Applicant's security argument does not establish the type of technological improvement recognized by the Guidance
Applicant additionally argues that direct UPS-to-IBK communications: “improve security by minimizing the number of intermediary systems and communications links used by an IBK to authenticate a given transaction.”
The Office has considered this argument but finds it unpersuasive on the present claim language.
A claim directed to improving computer or network security can, in appropriate circumstances, integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The 2024 USPTO examples illustrate that an abstract analysis applied in a particular way to improve network security may establish eligibility.
The present claims, however, do not recite a specific cybersecurity technique.
For example, the claims do not recite: detecting malicious traffic; preventing unauthorized network access; improving cryptographic operations; altering authentication tokens; securing network packets; detecting network anomalies; mitigating an identified network vulnerability; or modifying network architecture in a particular technical manner to resist attack.
Rather, Applicant asserts that the claimed arrangement is more secure because fewer intermediaries are involved in processing the financial transaction.
That asserted benefit arises from the arrangement of participants in the commercial payment-authentication workflow. The claims do not recite a particular technical security mechanism that changes the way the underlying computer network protects information.
The alleged security benefit therefore does not establish that the abstract commercial interaction has been integrated into a technological practical application.
VII. Applicant's reliance on alleged novelty/non-obviousness is misplaced in the §101 inquiry
Applicant repeatedly argues that: the claimed operations allegedly “have never been performed before”; the claimed speed was “unheard of using conventional systems”; and the claims use known technologies “in a new and non-obvious manner.”
Those arguments principally concern novelty and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that eligibility under §101 is a separate inquiry from novelty or non-obviousness. A claim does not become eligible merely because the particular abstract process or technological implementation is alleged to be novel.
Similarly, the USPTO's eligibility framework does not ask at Step 2A whether the complete claimed combination is obvious. Rather, Prong Two asks whether the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the exact arrangement had not previously been disclosed, that fact alone does not establish subject-matter eligibility.
VIII. Applicant's Step 2B arguments are not persuasive
Applicant argues that the claimed use of 5G links and multiple authentications provides the “something more” required by Step 2B.
The Office disagrees.
At Step 2B, the claim must be considered as a whole, including the additional elements individually and in combination.
The additional elements include: POS hardware processors; non-transitory computer-readable media; a user payment system; an issuing bank; an acquiring bank; communications modules; wireless links; 5G connections; transaction-authentication messages; and
location information.
The ordered combination uses those components to carry out the following sequence:
receive financial information → communicate the information → authenticate the user/location/POS → obtain bank authorization → approve or reject → complete the transaction.
The additional elements therefore implement the abstract commercial interaction using electronic communications and financial-processing infrastructure.
Applicant emphasizes that the elements are arranged in a purportedly unconventional combination. However, an allegation that the combination is novel or non-obvious is not itself sufficient to establish an inventive concept under §101.
Furthermore, the claimed 5G links do not add a technological function separate from performing the payment-authentication process. Their claimed function is to transport the information required by the commercial transaction.
Accordingly, the claimed combination does not transform the nature of the claim into something other than electronically implementing the underlying financial-authentication process.
IX. Clarification concerning WURC findings
Applicant argues that the prior Action improperly characterized the recited elements as “conventional.”
The Office clarifies the rejection. Under current USPTO procedure, well-understood, routine, conventional activity is not part of Step 2A, Prong Two. Nor should an examiner conclusory assert at Step 2B that a specific limitation is WURC without factual support.
The current MPEP expressly states that where a Step 2B rejection relies upon a determination that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional, that determination must be supported in writing by an appropriate factual basis.
Accordingly, the Office does not rely merely upon the generalized proposition that “5G is conventional” to maintain the rejection.
Rather, the Office maintains the rejection principally because, even giving full patentable weight to the 5G/direct-link/low-delay limitations, those limitations merely specify the technological environment and desired speed in which the abstract financial-authentication process is performed and do not recite a technological improvement to that environment.
To the extent the Step 2B rejection additionally relies on any particular element being well-understood, routine and conventional, the Office should identify supporting evidence in accordance with MPEP §§2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a).
X. The claims must be evaluated as a whole, but the ordered combination still does not provide a practical application
Applicant correctly notes that the claims must be considered as an ordered combination.
The Office has done so.
Viewed as a whole, amended claim 1 requires a POS to: receive payment information directly from a user payment system; communicate that payment information substantially simultaneously to an issuing bank over a first 5G direct wireless connection; receive an approval/disapproval; verify POS location through an acquiring bank over a second 5G direct wireless connection; receive user-location authentication; exchange authentication results;
receive final transaction authorization; and complete the requested payment transaction, with the specified authentications occurring without humanly perceptible delay.
That ordered combination certainly narrows how the commercial transaction is performed.
However, narrowing an abstract commercial process to a particular electronic arrangement does not necessarily integrate that process into a practical application.
The ordered combination remains focused on the commercial objective of authenticating and approving a transaction. The technological components operate according to their ordinary information-receiving, transmitting, processing, and networking functions to accomplish that objective.
No limitation requires a specific improvement to the operation of the processor, POS terminal, mobile device, 5G network, or geolocation technology.
The same reasoning applies to independent claims 8 and 12 and their respective dependent claims.
XI. Dependent claims
Applicant's arguments are directed generally to all claims but do not identify a dependent claim containing an additional limitation that independently changes the eligibility result.
Claims 2, 6, 14, 19, and related claims further define payment credentials, authentication factors, authorization rules, clearing operations, or financial-system relationships. These limitations further refine the commercial transaction. Claims 3, 4, 7, and 15–16 further use geographic location as a condition of transaction authorization. Claims 5, 9, 10, and 18 further define the communication links among the existing financial-system components. Claims 13 and 20 further impose simultaneous timing requirements. Claim 17 specifies use of a smartphone.
Considered separately and in combination with their parent claims, these limitations do not recite a particular technological improvement sufficient to alter the eligibility determination.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Office agrees that the amended claims should not be rejected on the theory that the claimed network operations constitute a mental process, because the recited multi-device electronic communications cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
That does not resolve Step 2A, Prong One, however, because the claims separately recite certain methods of organizing human activity—commercial interactions, namely authenticating, authorizing, and completing financial transactions.
Applicant's added requirements concerning: 5G direct wireless communication;substantially real-time transmission; substantially simultaneous processing;multiple authentications; location verification; and operation without humanly perceptible delay have been considered individually and as an ordered combination.
They do not, as presently claimed, recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, 5G networking, POS technology, geolocation technology, or cybersecurity. Instead, they specify the communication environment, routing, timing, and desired performance with which the financial-authentication transaction is performed.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
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 ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights