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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 27 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: “through the plurality transmitting or receiving power stations” is missing an “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 21 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 21 recites, a method for enabling wireless energy transfer transactions between at least one wireless energy receiving device or a buyer and at least one wireless energy transmitting device of a supplier, wherein the wireless energy is transferred through a plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, the method comprising: sending fiat currency to a first server, by the buyer; exchanging the fiat currency, with a trust server, for a two-part currency comprising a first part and a second part, by the first server; sending the first part of the two-part currency to the buyer and retaining the second part of the two-part currency, by the first server; sending the first part of the two-part currency to the supplier to purchase wireless energy, by the buyer; providing wireless energy to the wireless energy receiving device of the buyer, by the wireless energy transmitting device of the supplier; sending the first part of the two-part currency to the first server by the supplier; combining the first part of the two-part currency and the second part of the two-part currency and sending the first part of the two-part currency and second part of the two-part currency to the trust server as the two-part currency, by the first server; sending fiat currency to the first server, by the trust server; sending fiat currency to the supplier, by the first server. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations are also interactions between people, such as following instructions. The limitations are also a mental process, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, providing wireless energy, a wireless energy receiving device, wireless energy transmitting device, first server, and trust server. The additional elements of a plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, a wireless energy receiving device, wireless energy transmitting device, first server, and trust server, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, a wireless energy receiving device, wireless energy transmitting device, first server, and trust server) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 22 recites wherein a two-part currency is used. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 23 recites wherein the transaction is initiated by scanning a QR code associated with the supplier, by the buyer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of the QR code are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 21 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 24 recites further comprising a wireless energy two-part blockchain currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 25 recites wherein the transaction is recorded on at least one blockchain ledger of at least one blockchain application. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of a blockchain application are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 21 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of blockchain ledger are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 26 recites wherein the at least one blockchain application validates a correctness of the transfer of wireless energy, and wherein the two-way communication connection between the wireless energy transmitting device and the wireless energy receiving device is terminated upon validation of the correctness of the wireless energy transfer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of blockchain application, wireless energy transmitting device and wireless energy receiving device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 21 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 27 recites wherein: a plurality of devices can navigate, maneuver, beam ride, and/or recharge from point to point through the plurality transmitting or receiving power stations; wherein the plurality of devices are configured to transmit and receive power and data to and from a land-based, air-based, water-based, and/or space- based system to serve as power and data hubs, coupled to a plurality of tethers to further distribute power and/or data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of plurality transmitting or receiving power stations, plurality of device, a land-based, air-based, water-based, and/or space- based system, and plurality of tethers are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 21 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 28 recites further comprising, generating, by the trust server, trust server data and providing the trust server data to a trust server approval module to approve the buyer and or supplier as a potential customer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of a trust server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 21 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 29 recites wherein the trust server data includes buyer identity data for confirming the identity of at least the buyer and or supplier. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 30 recites wherein the trust server data includes approval data for confirming the buyer is eligible to receive wireless energy or the supplier is eligible to send wireless energy. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 31 –
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 31 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 31 recites a system for enabling wireless energy transfer transactions between a buyer and a supplier, wherein the wireless energy is transferred through a plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, the system comprising: a wireless energy receiving device of a buyer; a wireless energy transmitting device of a supplier; a computing device of the buyer; a computing device of the supplier; a first server, the first server configured to: receive fiat currency from the computing device of the buyer; and exchange the fiat currency, with a trust server, for a two-part currency comprising a first part and a second part; send the first part of the two-part currency to the computing device of the buyer and retain the second part of the two-part currency, by the first server; wherein the computing device of the buyer is configured to: send the first part of the two-part currency to the computing device of the supplier to purchase wireless energy; the computing device of the supplier configured to: send the first part of the two-part currency by the computing device of the supplier to the first server; the first server further configured to: combine the first part of the two-part currency and the second part of the two-part currency and send the first part of the two-part currency and second part of the two-part currency to the trust server as the two-part currency, by the supplier; the trust server configured to: sending fiat currency to the first server; the first server further configured to: send fiat currency to the supplier; and the at least one wireless energy transmitting device configured to: provide wireless energy to the wireless energy receiving device of the buyer. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations are also interactions between people, such as following instructions. The limitations are also a mental process, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, provide wireless energy, system, wireless energy receiving device, wireless energy transmitting device, computing device of the buyer, computing device of the supplier, first server, trust server, transmitting device, and receiving device of the buyer. The additional elements of a plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, system, wireless energy receiving device, wireless energy transmitting device, computing device of the buyer, computing device of the supplier, first server, trust server, transmitting device, and receiving device of the buyer, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (plurality of transmitting or receiving power stations, system, wireless energy receiving device, wireless energy transmitting device, computing device of the buyer, computing device of the supplier, first server, trust server, transmitting device, and receiving device of the buyer) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 32 recites wherein a two-part currency is used. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 33 recites wherein the transaction is initiated by scanning a QR code associated with the supplier, by the computing device of the buyer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and the additional elements of the QR code are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 31 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 34 recites wherein the two-part currency is a wireless energy two-part blockchain currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 35 recites wherein the transaction is recorded on at least one blockchain ledger of at least one blockchain application. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and the additional elements of a blockchain application are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 31 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and the additional elements of blockchain ledger are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 36 recites wherein the at least one blockchain application validates a correctness of the transfer of wireless energy, and wherein the two- way communication connection between the wireless energy transmitting device and the wireless energy receiving device is terminated upon validation of the correctness of the wireless energy transfer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and the additional elements of blockchain application, wireless energy transmitting device and wireless energy receiving device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 31 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 37 recites wherein a plurality of devices can navigate, maneuver, beam ride, and/or recharge from point to point through the plurality transmitting or receiving power stations; wherein the plurality of devices are configured to transmit and receive power and data to and from a land-based, air-based, water-based, and/or space- based system to serve as power and data hubs, coupled to a plurality of tethers to further distribute power and/or data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and the additional elements of plurality transmitting or receiving power stations, plurality of device, a land-based, air-based, water-based, and/or space- based system, and plurality of tethers are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 31 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 38 recites further comprising a trust server approval module, wherein the trust server generates trust server data and provides the trust server data to the trust server approval module to approve the buyer and or supplier as a potential customer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and the additional elements of a trust server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 31 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 39 recites wherein the trust server data includes at least the buyer and or supplier identity data for confirming the identity of the buyer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 40 recites wherein the trust server data includes approval data for confirming the buyer is eligible to receive wireless energy or the supplier is eligible to send wireless energy. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101; set forth in the above Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses sending fiat currency to a first server, by a buyer; as well as sending fiat currency to the first server, by a trust server; sending fiat currency to the supplier, by the first server, but fails to disclose exchanging the fiat currency, with a trust server, for a two-part currency comprising a first part and a second part, by the first server; sending the first part of the two-part currency to the buyer and retaining the second part of the two-part currency, by the first server; sending the first part of the two-part currency to the supplier to purchase wireless energy, by the buyer; providing wireless energy to the wireless energy receiving device of the buyer, by the wireless energy transmitting device of the supplier; sending the first part of the two-part currency to the first server by the supplier; and combining the first part of the two-part currency and the second part of the two-part currency and sending the first part of the two-part currency and second part of the two-part currency to the trust server as the two-part currency, by the first server.
However, the claims still do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are not abstract. Examiner disagrees. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations of the abstract idea include sending fiat currency….by the buyer; exchanging fiat currency…for a two-part currency comprising a first part and a second part; sending the first part to the buyer and retaining the second part; sending the first part to the suppliers to purchase wireless energy; sending the first part back…by the supplier; combining the first part and the second part and sending both parts…as the two-part currency; sending fiat currency; and sending fiat currency to the supplier. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations are also interactions between people, such as following instructions. The limitations are also a mental process, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Providing wireless energy is an additional element, and provides no technical detail as to how the energy is transferred.
The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Similarly, in DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Applicant’s arguments and as well as amended claims, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claims 21 and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of Claims 21 and 31 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
