Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 11th of July 2025.
Claims 1-4 were amended.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 07/15/2025 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Second IDS filed was un-readable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11th of July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-4, Applicant argues “…As amended, the claims recite specific and detailed technical components, including an integration tier configured to manage mobile wallet sessions using web services communication mechanisms, a payment handler configured to expose a common API for interfacing with various financial processors, and a security service to authenticate subscribers. Additionally, the system validates account status by querying account attributes and enforcing configurable business rules and transaction limits, a technical operation performed through coordination between the integration tier and a storage system. These limitations go well beyond simply reciting financial transactions and instead define a detailed, computer-implemented system architecture for managing secure, real-time digital transactions.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant further described additional features of the computer components; however, examiner is unclear how this helps to solve a technical problem. Merely “querying (database) for account attributes” for validation purpose is also merely using the technology to implement the abstract idea, which cannot integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The examiner is particularly unclear what is the technical solution to a technical problem. The computer components can have many features including the features never used in the validation process, therefore, how does any of these features help to solve a technical problem in a validation process. For example, how does “maintaining multi-session communication” or exposing “a common API” help technically in the validation process? The examiner will maintain the rejection.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claims 1, 2, and 4, the claim recites an abstract idea of “…receiving a communication message from a mobile device over one of a plurality of channels connected to the monetary transaction system, the communication message being received by the integration tier of the monetary transaction system, the communication message indicating that a subscriber desires to perform a digital financial transaction, validating a status of an account associated with the subscriber by querying account attributes and enforcing configurable transaction limits and business rules, wherein validating the status of the account comprises communicating from the integration tier to the storage system to query attributes of the account, and receiving confirmation that the digital financial transaction has been performed…” For claim 3, the claim recites an abstract idea of “…validating the status of the subscriber's account by querying account attributes and enforcing configurable transaction limits and business rules, wherein validating the status of the subscriber’s account comprises communicating from an integration tier to the storage system to query attributes of the subscriber's account…manage mobile wallet sessions with a mobile device and including web services communication mechanisms for maintaining multi-session communication with different device types…receive a communication message from the mobile device over one of a plurality of different communication channels, the communication message being received by the integration tier of a monetary transaction system, the communication message indicating that the subscriber desires to perform a digital financial transaction…expose a common API to facilitate interfaces with multiple different payment processors…” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely conducting monetary transaction between subscribers including validating subscriber’s account. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., processors, computer-readable media/storage system, API, mobile device, computer system, mobile wallet, communication mechanism). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g. processors, computer-readable media/storage system, API, mobile device, computer system, mobile wallet, communication mechanism) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g. processors, computer-readable media/storage system, API, mobile device, computer system, mobile wallet, communication mechanism) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 - (e.g., processors, computer-readable media/storage system, API, mobile device, computer system, mobile wallet, communication mechanism) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 10/04/2025