DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed April 9, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on April 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in claims 2 and 3. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the limitation "the payment processing device of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a processor. Claims 2-5 are directed to a device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of transmitting an authorization of a transaction. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to transmitting an authorization of a transaction. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
1. A payment processing system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations to:
identify authentication data from a received communication, wherein the authentication comprises, or is derived from, at least one of the following:
a prior transaction history known to a phone or another mobile device carried by a person, wherein the prior transaction history includes an authentication history associated with a merchant processing device,
an extracted location of the phone or the other mobile device, the extracted location taken from a response, by the phone or the other mobile device, to a query sent to the phone or the other mobile device; and
transmit an authorization of a transaction between a payer associated with the phone or the other mobile device and a merchant based on a result of a comparison of information taken from the authentication data to stored data.
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 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the memory, processor, mobile device, phone, and merchant processing device are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of transmitting an authorization of a transaction. Viewed as a whole, the use of memory, processor, mobile device, phone, and merchant processing device as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks 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)), 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 claim(s) does/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 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the memory, processor, mobile device, phone, and merchant processing device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transmitting an authorization of a transaction. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transmitting an authorization of a 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 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as determine whether the prior transaction history is sufficient to approve the transaction without using location data; and transmit a request for the expected location only if the prior transaction history is not sufficient to approve the transaction.
The dependent claims do 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 claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,626,262 to Giobbi et al. (“Giobbi”) in view of KR100372683 (“KR ‘683).
Referring to claim 1, Giobbi discloses a processor (Fig. 3, 306); and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations to (Fig. 2, 210):
identify authentication data from a received communication, wherein the authentication comprises, or is derived from, at least one of the following (claim 1 – facial image/biometric):
a prior transaction history known to a phone or another mobile device carried by a person, wherein the prior transaction history includes an authentication history associated with a merchant processing device (claim 1 – biometric profile stored in the portable user device; col. 12, ll. 53-56),
an extracted location of the phone or the other mobile device, the extracted location taken from a response, by the phone or the other mobile device, to a query sent to the phone or the other mobile device (col. 17, ll.17-19), and
transmit an authorization of a transaction between a payer associated with the phone or the other mobile device and a merchant based on a result of a comparison of information taken from the authentication data to stored data (abstract).
Additionally, KR ‘683 discloses prior transaction history includes an authentication history associated with a merchant processing device (see claims – “the method of claim 2, wherein the authentication history of the authentication client identification code, the authentication server of the organization code, the user authentication system using a portable device comprising a transaction history).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of KR ‘683 into Giobbi as they relate to authenticating portable devices. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Giobbi in view of KR ‘683 disclose wherein in the case the authentication comprises, or is derived from, the prior transaction history known to the phone or the other mobile device the operations are further to: determine whether the prior transaction history is sufficient to approve the transaction without using location data; and transmit a request for the expected location only if the prior transaction history is not sufficient to approve the transaction (see claim 1 above).
As per claim 3, Giobbi in view of KR ‘683 disclose the operations further to: determine whether one of the prior transaction history and the extracted location is sufficient to approve the transaction without requiring the other of the prior transaction history or the extracted location; in a case the one of the prior transaction history and the extracted location is not sufficient to approve the transaction, the transmit the authorization of the transaction is a based on the other of the prior transaction history and the extracted location (see claim 1 above).
As per claim 4, Giobbi in view of KR ‘683 disclose wherein: in a case the authentication data comprises, or is derived from, the extracted location of the phone or the other mobile device, the transmit the authorization of the transaction is further based on whether the extracted location coincides with an excepted location within an acceptable distance (see claim1 above and Giobbi at col. 11, lines 56-67).
As per claim 5, Giobbi in view of KR ‘683 discloses wherein: in a case the authentication data comprises, or is derived from, the prior transaction history known to the phone or the other mobile device, the operations are further to: determine whether the prior transaction history is sufficient to approve the transaction without using location data; and in a case the prior transaction history is not sufficient to approve the transaction, the transmit the authorization of the transaction is further based on a geographical distance between the phone or the other mobile device and the merchant processing device (see claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2869255 A1 to van den Broeck et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights