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 .
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 07/22/2026. Currently, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. No newly added claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 17 is sufficient to overcome the claim objection of claim 17 set forth in the previous action.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite methods of assisting a disabled user locate a payment device.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“sensing with a sensor on a mobile device of the disable user environmental data of a merchant environment;
examining the environmental data by the mobile device to identify the payment terminal;
notifying the disabled user by the mobile device that the payment terminal has been identified in the environmental data;
actively guiding the disabled disable user by the mobile device to the payment terminal by providing feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device relative to the payment terminal as the disabled user moves the mobile device, wherein the feedback indicates to the disabled user whether the mobile device is moving closer to or farther from the payment terminal.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data, 2) analyzing the acquired data to location a payment terminal, 3) notifying a disabled user of a payment terminal based on a result, and 4) guiding the disabled user to the payment terminal.
The above steps describe the process of assisting a disabled user to locate a payment terminal. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (sensor, mobile device, payment terminal) to perform the limitations encompassing the identified abstract idea. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the steps of “initiating the payment transaction once the mobile device is within a near-field communication range of the payment terminal”, amounts to post-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the additional elements of “receiving an audible confirmation request from an issuer”, “apprising the disabled user and prompting the disabled user to confirm or cancel the transaction”, “sending a confirmation response by the disabled user” and “receiving an authorization from the issuer” describe sending and receiving data (confirmation request, user input, confirmation response, authorization) between the issuer and user, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “initiating the payment transaction once the mobile device is within a near-field communication range of the payment terminal”, amounts to post-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the additional elements of “receiving an audible confirmation request from an issuer”, “apprising the disabled user and prompting the disabled user to confirm or cancel the transaction”, “sending a confirmation response by the disabled user” and “receiving an authorization from the issuer”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of “transmitting or receiving data over a network”. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0302510 (Chachek et al. – hereinafter Chachek) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2016/0174038 (Menardais et al. – hereinafter Menardais), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0156510 (Howe).
Referring to claim 1, Chachek discloses a method for assisting a disabled user to locate a payment terminal for a payment transaction, the method comprising:
sensing with a sensor on a mobile device of the disabled user environmental data of a merchant environment; and [See paragraphs 0051, 0055-0057, 0059, 0081]
examining the environmental data by the mobile device to identify the payment terminal. [See paragraphs 0062, 0087-0089]
Chachek does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
notifying the disabled user by the mobile device that the payment terminal has been identified in the environmental data;
actively guiding the disabled user by the mobile device to the payment terminal by providing feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device relative to the payment terminal as the disabled user moves the mobile device, wherein the feedback indicates to the disabled user whether the mobile device is moving closer to or farther from the payment terminal;
initiating the payment transaction once the mobile device is within a near-field communication range of the payment terminal;
receiving an audible confirmation request from an issuer for the payment transaction;
apprising the disabled user via the mobile device of a payment amount for the payment transaction and prompting the disabled user to confirm or cancel the payment transaction;
sending a confirmation response by the disabled user to the issuer; and
receiving an authorization from the issuer for the payment transaction.
Menardais teaches a system with the limitations:
notifying the disabled user by the mobile device that the payment terminal has been identified in the environmental data; [See paragraph 0084]
actively guiding the disabled user by the mobile device to the payment terminal by providing feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device relative to the payment terminal as the disabled user moves the mobile device, wherein the feedback indicates to the disabled user whether the mobile device is moving closer to or farther from the payment terminal; and [See paragraphs 0069, 0089-0097]
initiating the payment transaction once the mobile device is within a near-field communication range of the payment terminal. [See paragraphs 0069, 0089-0097]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Chachek to have incorporated a proximity sensing feature as in Menardais with the motivation of bringing two devices together requiring communication. [See Menardais paragraphs 0054-0057]
Howe teaches a system with the limitations:
receiving an audible confirmation request from an issuer for the payment transaction; [See paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0049-0051]
apprising the disabled user via the mobile device of a payment amount for the payment transaction and prompting the disabled user to confirm or cancel the payment transaction; [See paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0049-0051]
sending a confirmation response by the disabled user to the issuer; and [See paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0049-0051]
receiving an authorization from the issuer for the payment transaction. [See paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0049-0051]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Chachek and Menardais to have incorporated an security authentication feature as in Howe with the motivation of authentication a user associated with a payment transaction. [See Howe paragrpahs 0032, 0039]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed by a software application on the mobile device, the mobile device is a smart phone, the sensor is a camera, and the environmental data includes visual data captured by the camera. [See Chachek paragraphs 0055, 0061, 0083, 0205]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the payment terminal is identified based on one or more of a shape of the payment terminal; [See Chachek paragraphs 0060, 0109]
a presence of relevant writing, a contactless symbol, or a brand logo on the payment terminal; and [See Chachek paragraphs 0060, 0109]
a presence of a display or a tap-to-pay area on the payment terminal. [See Chachek paragraphs 0060, 0109]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed by a software application on the mobile device, the mobile device is an electronic payment card, the sensor is a receiver, and the environmental data includes an electronic signal received by the receiver. [See Menardais paragraph 0106]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method claim 1, wherein the disabled user is notified with a vibration that the payment terminal has been identified. [See Menardais paragraphs 0089-0097, 0113]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method claim 1, wherein the disabled user is notified with a sound that the payment terminal has been identified. [See Menardais paragraphs 0089-0097, 0113]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 1, further including continuing to sense and examine environmental data of the merchant environment as the disabled user moves the mobile device to confirm identification of the payment terminal. [See Menardais paragraph 0084]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method claim 1, wherein the feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device is haptic. [See Menardais paragraphs 0089-0097]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 8, wherein an aspect of the feedback is varied to indicate a direction the mobile device should be moved based on the position of the mobile device relative to the payment terminal. [See Menardais paragraphs 0089-0097]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method claim 1, wherein the feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device is audible. [See Menardais paragraphs 0089-0097]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 1, further including actively guiding the disabled user to a tap-to-pay area on the payment terminal by providing feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device relative to the tap-to-pay area as the disabled user moves the mobile device, wherein the feedback indicates to the disabled user whether the mobile device is moving closer to or farther from the tap-to-pay area. [See Menardais paragraphs 0089-0097]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 1, further including using an artificial intelligence element to facilitate identifying and guiding the disabled user to the payment terminal, wherein the artificial intelligence element is trained to recognize a plurality of different types of payment terminals. [See Chachek paragraphs 0060, 0179, 0185]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Chachek, Menardais and Howe discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the artificial intelligence element communicates the identification of the payment terminal in the merchant environment for future use by other mobile devices. [See Chachek paragraphs 0060, 0179, 0185]
Referring to claims 15-20, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 11, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under Section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims describe the steps of 1) acquiring data, 2) analyzing/comparing the acquired data to location a payment terminal, 3) notifying a disabled user of a payment terminal based on a result, and 4) guiding the disabled user to the payment terminal.
The claims describe the process of assisting a disabled user to locate a payment terminal, which covers managing personal behavior or relationship (guiding the disabled user’s movement), and falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the feature, “disabled user”, to limit the claimed invention to assisting the disabled and emphasizing the disability assistive nature of the claimed invention. Simply limiting the application of the abstract idea to “disabled users” is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The limitation of "actively guiding the disabled user by the mobile device to the payment terminal by providing feedback to the disabled user of the position of the mobile device relative to the payment terminal as the disabled user moves the mobile device, wherein the feedback indicates to the disabled user whether the mobile device is moving closer to or farther from the payment terminal” simply describes providing the result of comparing the position data of the mobile device to the payment terminal. The result indicates closeness of the user to the payment terminal to perform a transaction. Similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), the claimed invention tracks and guides the movement of the user’s mobile device to determining whether the user is closer or farther away from a payment terminal. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
In Flook, the court held that the step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity". Similar to Flook, the step of “initiating the payment transaction once the mobile device is within a near-field communication range of the payment terminal”, simply initiates a transaction according to the determined position data comparison of the mobile device and payment terminal, which amounts to post-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the additional elements of “receiving an audible confirmation request from an issuer”, “apprising the disabled user and prompting the disabled user to confirm or cancel the transaction”, “sending a confirmation response by the disabled user” and “receiving an authorization from the issuer” describe sending and receiving data (confirmation request, user input, confirmation response, authorization) between the issuer and user over a network, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3 & 4, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Chachek in view of Menardais have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chachek, Menardais and Howe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights