DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/06/2025 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 05/28/2026.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 7, 15 and 20 are canceled.
Claims 22-25 are added.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19 are amended.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16-19 and 21-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 05/28/2026.
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 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a process and a plurality of apparatus, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 2 recites:
A method, comprising:
wirelessly receiving, by a wireless router, electronic information from a mobile device of a user;
analyzing the electronic information;
determining, based on the analyzing, that the electronic information comprises a transaction request, from the user, to engage in a transaction with a merchant;
accessing, by the wireless router, based on the transaction request, an authorization token;
electronically transmitting, by the wireless router, the authorization token to a payment provider server;
receiving, by the wireless router, transaction information associated with the transaction request from the payment provider server after the authorization token has been verified by the payment provider server; and
electronically transmitting, by the wireless router, the transaction information to a merchant server of the merchant.
deleting the transaction information from an electronic memory of the wireless router after the transaction request has been processed.
Claim 4 recites:
Causing a registration of the mobile device with the payment provider server at least in part by sending, to the payment provider server, a serial number of the mobile device, a media access control (MAC) address of the mobile device, or an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the mobile device.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein: the wirelessly receiving is performed using a first communications protocol; and one or more of the electronically transmitting the authorization token, the receiving the transaction information, or the electronically transmitting the transaction information is performed using a second communications protocol different from the first communications protocol.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the analyzing comprises determining whether the electronic information comprises a code that matches a predefined code.
Claim 8 recites:
before the transaction information is electronically transmitted to the merchant server, the transaction information is formatted to include one or more data processable by the merchant server.
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the mobile device of the user comprises an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the authorization token was previously received from the payment provider server before the electronic information is wirelessly received.
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the authorization token comprises a hash or an alphanumeric string that is decipherable by the payment provider server to identify an account of the user.
Claim 12 recites:
A wireless device, comprising:
an antenna;
a non-transitory memory;
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at least in part via the antenna, electronic data from an application of a mobile device of a user, wherein the electronic data comprises a status code or information in a header;
determining, based on the status code or the information in the header, that the application of the mobile device is attempting to conduct a transaction with a merchant;
retrieving, based on the determining, an authorization token stored in the non-transitory memory;
sending the authorization token to a payment processor;
receiving, from the payment processor, transaction information that comprises account information of the user usable to conduct the transaction with the merchant;
sending the transaction information to a merchant website or a merchant application of the merchant;
deleting the transaction information from the wireless device after the transaction has been conducted with the merchant.
Claim 13 recites:
wherein: the electronic data is received under a Wi-Fi protocol; and the authorization token is sent, the transaction information is received from the payment processor, or the transaction information is sent to the merchant website or the merchant application under a Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the determining is based on a match between a predefined code and the status code or between information in a predefined header and the information in the header
Claim 16 recites:
formatting the transaction information received from the payment processor, such that the formatted transaction information comprises information in one or more fields associated with the merchant website or the merchant application.
Claim 17 recites:
wherein the operations further comprise: registering the wireless device with the payment processor based on: a serial number of the wireless device, a media access control (MAC) address of the wireless device, or an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the wireless device; receiving, from the payment processor after the wireless device has been registered, the authorization token, wherein the authorization token comprises information that is decipherable by the payment processor to locate the account information of the user; and storing the authorization token in the non-transitory memory.
Claim 18 recites:
wherein the mobile device of the user comprises an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device.
Claim 19 recites:
A system that comprises non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions executable to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
analyzing an electronic message sent from an application of a mobile device of a user, wherein the electronic message is sent while the mobile device is within a specified physical proximity range of the system;
determining, based on the analyzing indicating that a portion of the electronic message matches a specified code, that the application of the mobile device is requesting to conduct a transaction with a merchant;
sending, based on the determining, an authorization token stored in the non-transitory machine-readable medium to a service provider server, wherein the authorization token comprises data that is decodable by the service provider server to identify an account of the user;
receiving, from the service provider server after the authorization token has been sent, transaction information that includes at least account information associated with the account of the user; and
providing at least the account information to a server of the merchant.
deleting the transaction information from the non-transitory machine-readable medium after the account information has been provided to the server of the merchant.
Claim 21 recites:
wherein the operations further comprise: allocating one or more portions of the transaction information in one or more specified fields in a predefined format.
Claim 22 recites:
wherein: the electronic message is sent using a first communications protocol; and one or more of the sending the authorization token, the receiving the transaction information, or the providing at least the account information is performed using a second communications protocol different from the first communications protocol.
Claim 23 recites:
wherein the operations further comprise registering the mobile device with the service provider server at least in part by sending, to the service provider server, hardware identification information of the mobile device.
Claim 24 recites:
wherein: the authorization token was previously received from the service provider server before the electronic message was analyzed; the authorization token comprises a hash or an alphanumeric string that is decipherable by the service provider server to identify an account of the user.
Claim 25 recites:
wherein the mobile device of the user comprises an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers facilitating transaction authorization. Facilitating transaction authorization manages the relationship between parties in a transaction, thus is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “wireless device”, “wireless router”, “A wireless device, comprising: an antenna; a non-transitory memory; one or more hardware processors …” and “a system that comprises non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions executable to cause the system to perform operations” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “wirelessly receiving, by a wireless router, electronic information from a mobile device of a user” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving information from a user;
the limitation “analyzing the electronic information” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of analyzing the information;
the limitation “determining, based on the analyzing, that the electronic information comprises a transaction request, from the user, to engage in a transaction with a merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining that the user request to engaging in a transaction with a merchant;
the limitation “accessing, by the wireless router, based on the transaction request, an authorization token” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of accessing an authorization token;
the limitation “electronically transmitting, by the wireless router, the authorization token to a payment provider server” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the authorization token to the a payment provider;
the limitation “receiving, by the wireless router, transaction information associated with the transaction request from the payment provider server after the authorization token has been verified by the payment provider server” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving transaction information associated with the transaction request from the payment provider;
the limitation “electronically transmitting, by the wireless router, the transaction information to a merchant server of the merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the transaction to the merchant;
the limitation “deleting the transaction information from an electronic memory of the wireless router after the transaction request has been processed” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of deleting the transaction information after the transaction has been processed;
the limitation “causing a registration of the mobile device with the payment provider server at least in part by sending, to the payment provider server, a serial number of the mobile device, a media access control (MAC) address of the mobile device, or an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the mobile device” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of registering the device with the payment provider by sending the serial number of the mobile device, the MAC address of the device or the IP address of the mobile device;
the limitation “wherein: the wirelessly receiving is performed using a first communications protocol; and one or more of the electronically transmitting the authorization token, the receiving the transaction information, or the electronically transmitting the transaction information is performed using a second communications protocol different from the first communications protocol” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of using different communication protocols to conduct the communication;
the limitation “wherein the analyzing comprises determining whether the electronic information comprises a code that matches a predefined code” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining whether the information comprises a code that matches a predefined code;
the limitation “before the transaction information is electronically transmitted to the merchant server, the transaction information is formatted to include one or more data processable by the merchant server” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of preformatting the transaction information to include data processable by the merchant;
the limitation “wherein the mobile device of the user comprises an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving information from the user;
the limitation “wherein the authorization token was previously received from the payment provider server before the electronic information is wirelessly received” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of pre-storing the authorization token;
the limitation “wherein the authorization token comprises a hash or an alphanumeric string that is decipherable by the payment provider server to identify an account of the user” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of using hash or alphanumeric string as authorization token;
the limitation “receiving, at least in part via the antenna, electronic data from an application of a mobile device of a user, wherein the electronic data comprises a status code or information in a header” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving data from a user;
the limitation “determining, based on the status code or the information in the header, that the application of the mobile device is attempting to conduct a transaction with a merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining that the user is attempting to conduct a transaction with a merchant;
the limitation “retrieving, based on the determining, an authorization token stored in the non-transitory memory” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of retrieving the authorization token stored;
the limitation “sending the authorization token to a payment processor” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending the authorization token to a payment processer;
the limitation “receiving, from the payment processor, transaction information that comprises account information of the user usable to conduct the transaction with the merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving transaction information from the payment processor;
the limitation “sending the transaction information to a merchant website or a merchant application of the merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending the transaction information to the merchant;
the limitation “deleting the transaction information from the wireless device after the transaction has been conducted with the merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of deleting the transaction information after the transaction has been processed;
the limitation “wherein: the electronic data is received under a Wi-Fi protocol; and the authorization token is sent, the transaction information is received from the payment processor, or the transaction information is sent to the merchant website or the merchant application under a Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of using different communication protocols to conduct the communication;
the limitation “wherein the determining is based on a match between a predefined code and the status code or between information in a predefined header and the information in the header” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining a match between the status code and a predefined code or between information in the header and the in a predefined header;
the limitation “formatting the transaction information received from the payment processor, such that the formatted transaction information comprises information in one or more fields associated with the merchant website or the merchant application” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of formatting the transaction information such that the formatted transaction information comprises information in one or more fields associated with the merchant’s forms;
the limitation “analyzing an electronic message sent from an application of a mobile device of a user, wherein the electronic message is sent while the mobile device is within a specified physical proximity range of the system” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of analyzing message sent from the user;
the limitation “determining, based on the analyzing indicating that a portion of the electronic message matches a specified code, that the application of the mobile device is requesting to conduct a transaction with a merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the user is requesting to conduct a transaction with a merchant;
the limitation “sending, based on the determining, an authorization token stored in the non-transitory machine-readable medium to a service provider server, wherein the authorization token comprises data that is decodable by the service provider server to identify an account of the user” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending an authorization token to a service provider;
the limitation “receiving, from the service provider server after the authorization token has been sent, transaction information that includes at least account information associated with the account of the user” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the transaction token from the service provider;
the limitation “providing at least the account information to a server of the merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing the account information to the merchant;
the limitation “deleting the transaction information from the non-transitory machine-readable medium after the account information has been provided to the server of the merchant” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of deleting the transaction information after the account information has been provided to the merchant;
the limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: allocating one or more portions of the transaction information in one or more specified fields in a predefined format” encompasses no more than generically invoking the aforementioned generic computing element(s) to apply the Judicial Exception step of filling the transaction information in fields in a predefined format.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “non-transitory memory”, “non-transitory machine-readable medium” and “an electronic memory of the wireless router” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “wireless router”, “an antenna”, “receiving wirelessly”, “receiving … from a mobile device (IoT device)”, “Wi-Fi protocol” and “Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as accessing, receiving and transmitting.
The additional element(s) of “system”, “wireless router” and “wireless device” are generically recited to perform analyzing and determining steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the devices accomplish it.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “wirelessly”, “electronic”, “application of …”, “… website” and “… server” are appended to abstract elements such as “receiving … information”, “data”, “user”, “payment processer”, “payment provider” and “merchant”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to facilitate transaction authorization amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 2, 4-6, 8-14, 16-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant contended that the “wireless router” is particular machine. However, the wireless router is only generically described in the disclosure of this application. No particular technological specification regarding the wireless router is disclosed. Thus, the wireless router is not a particular machine. Moreover, it is noted that the wireless router is only recited to perform communication steps such as accessing, receiving and transmitting step of the Judicial Exception. Thus, the wireless router is considered to a mere tool invoked to apply the Judicial Exception, which is Mere Instruction to Apply. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims amount to significantly more, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant contented the Office Action did not provide Berkheimer support. However, it should be noted that the Berkheimer support is only required “when the examiner has concluded that curtained claim elements recite well-understood, routine and convention activity in the relevant”, which the examiner did not make such assertion in the rejection. The inquiry of “well-known, routine and conventional” is not the sole inquiry in identifying inventive concept of a claimed invention. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Certain features in the claimed invention of the instant application similarly amounted to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. While the abstract idea being applied may be novel and non-obvious, the mere applying of the abstract idea to computer does not contain inventive concept. Since the mere instruction to apply the abstract idea contains no inventive concept, a “well-known, routine and convention” determination to the “apply it” feature logically would not result in the identification of unconventional step, nor would it be able to amount the claims to be significantly more than that of the abstract idea.
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 CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights