DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to Application No. 19/243,438 filed on June 19, 2025, titled: “Providing Remote Access To A Select Portion Of A Transaction Interface During A Transaction At A Transaction Terminal”.
Status of The Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 06/19/2025, is a DIV of US Application No. 17/658,680 (Patented No. 12,354,073), and claims no priority of other foreign application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 form with the examiner’s initials is enclosed to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patents No. 12,354,073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application recite substantially the same limitations as the claims of the Patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. The Application provides a method of providing remote access to a portion of a transaction interface to an override object during a transaction at a transaction terminal, and the Patent provides a method of linking a portion of a transaction interface to an override object during a transaction at a transaction terminal. Also, both the Application and Patent have the same inventors and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-8 recite a method comprising a series of steps. Therefore, the claims recite a process which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving an object identifier for an object from a remote hosting application;
identifying the object within a transaction interface workflow of a transaction interface on a transaction terminal based on the object identifier;
notifying the transaction interface to provide a control of the object while the transaction interface workflow is being processed for a transaction on the transaction terminal;
receiving the control from the transaction interface during the transaction; and
remoting an override object hosted and by the remote hosting application in place of the object during the transaction.
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., an object identifier, remote hosting application, transaction interface, transaction terminal, and override object). More specifically, the claim recites a fundamental economic practice including a process for providing remote access to a portion of a transaction interface to an override object during a transaction at a transaction terminal. The claim is directed to a process of mitigating risk during a transaction at a transaction terminal which is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed to mitigate risk before or during a transaction).
The claim recites the additional computer elements, such as an object identifier, remote hosting application, transaction interface, transaction terminal, and override object. All these computer elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked to perform the generic steps including receiving, identifying, notifying, receiving, and remoting. The mere nominal recitation of the generic computer elements do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the object identifier, remote hosting application, transaction interface, transaction terminal, and override object. All the computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is supported by the Applicant’s Specification (see at least paragraphs 10-30 and Figure 1 in Publication No. 2025/0315808-A1). Each recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. Accordingly, the 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 elements of using a computer to perform the receiving, identifying, notifying, receiving, and remoting functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 depend on claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-8 also recite the same abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 2 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein receiving further includes receiving a transaction interface state from the remote hosting application, wherein the transaction interface state is linked to a context within the transaction interface workflow that the control is to be obtained from the transaction interface.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., a transaction interface is linked to a context (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 3 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein receiving further includes providing settings or a profile associated with the transaction terminal to the remote hosting application.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., providing settings or a profile (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 4 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein notifying further includes process an Application Programming Interface (API) to instruct the transaction interface to provide the control during the transaction and during other transaction on the transaction terminal.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., processing the API to provide the control (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 5 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein notifying further includes process a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) to auto login into the remote hosting application when a start of the transaction is detected on the transaction terminal.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., processing the RDP to auto login into the remote hosting application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 6 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein receiving the control further includes processing the RDP to auto connect the remote hosting application with an area of a display for the transaction terminal that would typically include a rendered version of the object for the remote hosting application to remotely provide the override object within the area of the display.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., processing the RDP to auto connect the remote hosting application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 7 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein remoting further includes maintaining metrics during the transaction for user interaction with the override object during the transaction.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., maintaining metrics during the transaction (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 8 – recites additional elements about the method further including “wherein maintaining further includes providing the metrics to the remote hosting application when the transaction ends or providing the metrics in a log with other metrics for other transactions to the remote hosting application at preconfigured intervals of time.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., providing the metrics to the remote hosting application when the transaction ends (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than that of claim 1 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. Every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for providing remote access to a portion of a transaction interface to an override object during a transaction at a transaction terminal. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a computer network, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, in conclusion, claims 1-8 are not found patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Extensive prior art search has performed and no art(s) that teaches each and every elements of the claims at this time.
The closest prior art, Morgan (US Publication No. 2022/0035625-A1), does not teach each and every elements of the claims.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The arts are listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights