DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/01/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed 07/01/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
provide instructions for scanning an interactive element;
detecting that the interactive element is scanned;
in response to detecting that the interactive element is scanned, determining whether a token associated with the interactive element is claimed;
claiming the token associated with the interactive element;
receive one or more actions to be triggered when the interactive element is interacted with;
detecting one or more inputs of the one or more actions; and
updating a database to include the interactive element, the token claimed, and the one or more actions in association with the interactive element.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) in that the actions to be triggered when the interactive element is scanned, when considered in light of [0019] of the specification, could be a financial transaction such as allowing a person to scan a QR code to tip a barista or as [0058] describes, the interactive element may be an advertisement. The independent claims recite additional elements of a graphical user interface of an application executing a first electronic device, a payment service system, a second electronic device, one or more memories, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums and other than these elements are there for directed towards commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a graphical user interface of an application executing a first electronic device, a payment service system, a second electronic device, one or more memories, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums. The a graphical user interface of an application executing a first electronic device, a payment service system, a second electronic device, one or more memories, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). As MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. Additionally, the Examiner finds Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019) instructive, where the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited, and that the Courts concluded the exception was not integrated into a practical application, in that the claims did not improve the function of the computers or another technology, that is the court determined that the claims "did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account" nor did the claims "improve how a check is scanned." Id. Similar to the instant application where the claims are directed towards allowing a user to claim an interactive elements (such as a QR code) and when it is scanned allow for certain actions to be performed with no technical improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of a graphical user interface of an application executing a first electronic device, a payment service system, a second electronic device, one or more memories, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (see also creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" (, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l 573 U.S. at 224-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites and sending and receiving data over network, and storing and retrieving information from the database for allowing a user to claim an interactive elements (such as a QR code or barcode) and associate is with triggering an action when it is scanned (akin to Alice above "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions"), such as making a payment. Further, the displaying step falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claim 2 further describes the technical environment with 2 separate databases for the token and interactive elements, claims 3-7 further describe commercial and legal interactions but for generally linking them to the computer environment (third part app, second application, etc.) and are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas but for generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application, particularly with the combination of steps when considered as a whole with respect to detecting, on the graphical user interface, that the interactive element is scanned; in response to detecting that the interactive element is scanned, determining whether a token associated with the interactive element is claimed; updating the graphical user interface on the first electronic device for claiming the token associated with the interactive element; and updating the graphical user interface on the first electronic device to receive one or more actions to be triggered when the interactive element is interacted with using a second electronic device. As shown below, the art shows it was known use QR codes for users to scan and initiate actions and to generate tokens and QR codes for use in transactions, however they are not pre-generated such that a user can scan them, determine if the tokens are claimed and then assign an action to be performed when they are scanned by a second user as claimed above. The closest art of record is listed below:
The closest art of record, US Patent 10,839,369 B1 to Mossoba, et al., discloses “A first client device can be in communication with a server. The server can store in a database records associated with a first user account and a second user account. The first user can scan a code printed on an object. The first client device can read the code and transmit it to the server. The server can activate a default message when it receives the code. The first user can pass the object to a second user. The second user can scan the physical object at a second client device. The second client device can read the code and transmit it to the server. Once the server receives the code from the second client device, the server can transmit the default message from the first user account to the second user account according to a transmission plan. The second client device can display the transmitted message.”
The closest art of record, US Patent 10,713,634 to McBride, et al., discloses “According to embodiments of the invention information, such as the activation status of tokens, is stored in database 112, such as part of the data of unactivated tokens database 114. For example, when tokens 142 are generated, activation system 110 may store a unique code identifying each generated token in database 112 along with a status identifier indicating the tokens are “unactivated”. As discussed below, the status identifier may be updated upon activation of the tokens when postage indicia has been purchased and activated to indicate the indicia are “activated”. Such status identifiers may be useful with respect to validation of the indicia, as discussed further below. Additional or alternative information which may be stored in association with tokens may include identification of an entity or account for which the tokens were generated (e.g., a business requesting the tokens for their inventory or their use in mailing mail pieces), an entity generating the tokens (e.g., a service provider generating the tokens), identification of a system used to generate the tokens, cryptographic keys used for encrypting/decrypting information in the tokens, digital signatures used to authenticate the tokens, information regarding geographic areas mail items bearing indicia using the tokens may be introduced into a mail processing stream and/or geographic areas mail bearing indicia using the tokens may be delivered to, particular services and/or levels of service indicia bearing the indicia may be used for, and/or the like. Such additional information may be used in an audit trail with respect to any particular token or indicium created in association therewith, used to detect fraud or abuse of tokens and indicia created in association therewith, used for accounting purposes, used to restrict or manage the use of tokens or indicia created in association therewith, etc.”.
The closest art of record, WIPO PCT Publication WO2015/105688 to Kassemi, et al., discloses “A method implemented in a vendor system for transactions between a customer and a vendor facilitated by an e-commerce system is disclosed. The method includes transmitting, by a transmitter, a request for at least one QR code and token for use in an advertising campaign, receiving, by a receiver, the at least one QR code and token, wherein the at least one QR code and token includes at least one email field, transmitting, by a transmitter, a plurality of advertisement emails to a list of recipients, wherein the list of recipients includes registered and non-registered individuals, the advertisement emails including a mailto link that includes the at least one QR code and token, receiving, by the receiver, a notification message, wherein the notification message includes a confirmation that a transaction has been processed based on one of the transmitted plurality of advertisement emails, and executing an order for a customer in response to the received notification message… More specifically, a vendor system 230 requests QR codes and tokens at step 510. In response to the request, the e-commerce system 220 generates a bulk token with a QR code using the QR and token generator 284 at step 515. The vendor system 230 receives the QR codes and tokens from the e-commerce system 220 at step 520. The vendor system 230 publishes a QR code to a customer in one or more formats at step 525. The customer scans the QR code at step 530 using the customer device 240 using the QR scanner 246. An email is generated with the token at step 540. Using the email client 244, the customer selects the link at step 545. An email is then sent to the e-commerce system 220 at step 550.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20150213435 to Douglas, et al., discloses “In certain aspects, the barcode (or other code hosting the payment token information) may be encrypted so that only a certain mobile device is able to decrypt the barcode for obtaining the payment token. For example, the barcode may be encrypted with an identifier of mobile device 150, and as a result, if other mobile devices attempt to decode the barcode, the decoding process may not be successful. In one aspect, mobile device 150 may prompt user 152 for an identification input (e.g., password or PIN) for decryption of the barcode. In other embodiments, mobile device 150 may be configured to execute software instructions that perform decoding processes for decoding codes including payment tokens based on standardized formatting information. For example, mobile device 150 may store and execute software instructions (e.g., mobile applications 325) that is configured to detect, recognize, and process payment tokens from barcodes or similar codes based on predetermined barcode (or similar codes) and/or payment token format standards… In some embodiments, financial service system 110 may generate payment tokens based on one or more financial accounts of user 152. Financial service system 110 may store payment token parameters (e.g., restrictions, characteristics, refresh rates, conditions etc.) in a memory, where the payment token parameters may be linked to user 152 or multiple users, linked to mobile device(s), etc. This information may be accessible and used by financial service system 110 to confirm and authenticate or otherwise authorize the use of the payment token. In certain aspects, business logic may be stored at financial service system 110 to receive a request from merchant system 160 associated with the payment token to authorize its use. The request may be received after user 152 leaves the merchant location or during the purchase transaction.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20130166441 to Kobylkin, et al., discloses “An instant disposable payment card can have a quick response (QR) code. The QR code can be scanned by the user. Scanning the QR code can facilitate activation and/or funding of the instant disposable payment card and/or can facilitate a creation of an account or an activation of a pre-created account at a payment system provider. The user can then use the instant payment card to pay for purchases. A merchant can scan the QR code or swipe a magnetic strip of the instant disposable payment card to effect payment to the merchant for the purchase. An account of the instant disposable payment card can be funded after use thereof to make a purchase.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20210042724 to Rathod, discloses “In an embodiment administrator or user or sponsor or authorized user can create publication 2603 and provide publication name 2604, publication details 2606, logo of place of business 2607, provide location of place by employing one or more techniques including search and select location on map 2611 or select current location as place of business 2612 or provide address 2636 or location or geo co-ordinates 2638, or draw geofence boundary 2670 on map 2660 and associate one or more types of contents, data, merchant or user payments and account, controls, active links, user actions or call-to-actions information including select, add 2618/2619 and associate one or more types of contents including one or more photos and videos 2615/2625 with said location or place 2610 or geofence 2670, provide name 2632, shop or place of business name 2633, one or more types or categories 2635, description 2640, mobile number 2641, e-mail address 2642, location or defined geofence of place of business associated merchant account details or bank details 2643, merchant account details or bank details 2643 for creating QR code for enable customers to make payment… In an embodiment merchant associated with particular place of business can upload digital image or file of existing verified interoperable QR code and register and verify with server 110 via server module 190 (f) for creating merchant account by providing bank account linked mobile number and select or create or claim place on map and verify via receiving verification one time password (OTP). After verification server module 190 (f) decode readable data from QR code and store said data and associate said uploaded and stored QR code with said merchant associated place and associated details including verified identity of place, owner, merchant, bank account, mobile phone number.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights