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
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn by the Applicant.
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 1-10 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.
In the instance case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to performing a transaction which is an abstract idea. Claims recite “generating an interface code…; generating in response to loading…; and completing a transaction…” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of generating an interface code, generating interface with interface code and completing a transaction which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, server, interface and merchant server, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, server, interface and merchant server perform the steps of generating an interface code, generating interface with interface code and completing a transaction. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of server, interface and merchant server, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of performing a transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, server, interface and merchant server perform the steps of generating an interface code, generating interface with interface code and completing a transaction. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of performing transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 further describes the abstract idea of performing a transaction. Specifically claim 2 further describing the interface code which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 3 discloses creating tokens and performing transaction with the token which is a part of abstract idea of performing a transaction. Claims 4-10 describing the customizing of the interface which is again part of the abstract idea. The dependent claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claim is also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammad (US 20120018506).
With respect to claim 1, Hammad discloses:
generating an interface code (i.e. Plug-in) configured to connect to a payment server (See paragraph 0042);
generating, in response to loading a merchant website hosted on a merchant server that integrates the interface code, a payment interface (i.e. communication frame) with the interface code, wherein the interface code bypasses the merchant server to connect to the payment server (i.e. ACS) (See paragraph 0042);
completing a transaction using the payment interface that bypasses the merchant server to connect to the payment server (See paragraph 0042-0044).
With respect to claim 2, Hammad discloses all the limitations as described above. Hammad further disclose: wherein the interface code includes an interface identifier that identifies one or more transaction details of the transaction (See paragraph 0042, 0046, 0049).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad (US 20120018506) in view of Kushtagi (US 20230177171).
With respect to claim 3, Hammad discloses all the limitations as described above. Hammad does not explicitly disclose: generating a web token; generating private and public keys associated with the web token; generating an access token associated with the public key and the interface identifier; and authorizing a payment for the transaction with the payment server using the access token. Kushtagi discloses: generating a web token (i.e. JWT token); generating private and public keys associated with the web token; generating an access token (i.e. token R1) associated with the public key and the interface identifier; and authorizing a payment for the transaction with the payment server using the access token (See paragraphs 0020-0024, 0027 and 0040-0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Hammad reference with the Kushtagi reference in order to provide security to client application (See Kushtagi paragraph 0001).
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad (US 20120018506) in view of Ramesh (US 20210125266).
With respect to claim 4, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad further discloses: connecting to the payment server; identifying product details associated with the merchant website (See paragraph 0049). Hammad does not explicitly disclose: customizing the payment interface based on the product details. Ramesh discloses: customizing the payment interface based on the product details (See paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Hammad reference with the Ramesh reference in order to provide specific content based on past patterns (See Ramesh paragraph 0001).
With respect to claim 5, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad further discloses: wherein the product details correspond to at least one of: a product name, a price, a currency, a buyer information, or a merchant information. (See paragraph 0049).
With respect to claim 6, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad does not explicitly disclose: generating interface elements including at least one of: the product name; a quantity selection field; or a customer-entered price field. Ramesh discloses: generating interface elements including at least one of: the product name; a quantity selection field; or a customer-entered price field. (See paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Hammad reference with the Ramesh reference in order to provide specific content based on past patterns (See Ramesh paragraph 0001).
With respect to claim 7, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad further discloses: identifying one or more available payment methods; and generating interface elements corresponding to the one or more available payment methods (See paragraph 0042 and 0044) Additionally, Ramesh also discloses: identifying one or more available payment methods; and generating interface elements corresponding to the one or more available payment methods (See paragraph 0021 and 0032).
With respect to claim 8, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad does not explicitly disclose: determining locations for the interface elements. Ramesh discloses: determining locations for the interface elements (See paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Hammad reference with the Ramesh reference in order to provide specific content based on past patterns (See Ramesh paragraph 0001).
With respect to claim 9, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad further disclose: generating a shipping interface. (See paragraph 0083).
With respect to claim 10, Hammad discloses all the limitations as describe above. Hammad does not explicitly disclose: generating a tax interface. Ramesh discloses: generating a tax interface. (See paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Hammad reference with the Ramesh reference in order to provide specific content based on past patterns (See Ramesh paragraph 0001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights