DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated December 1, 2025.
2. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 19-20, 23-28 and 32 are pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 3-4, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 21-22, 29-31 have been canceled.
4. Claims 1-2, 10-11, 16, 19-20, 23, and 25-28 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 10, 19-20 and 25-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 1 is objected to because the claim recites “the DTM host” in the tenth limitation. This appears to be a typographical error and should more properly read “a DTM host”.
- Claim 10 is objected to because the claim recites “the DTM host” in the twelfth limitation. This appears to be a typographical error and should more properly read “a DTM host”.
- Claim 19 is objected to because the claim recites “the DTM host” in the tenth limitation. This appears to be a typographical error and should more properly read “a DTM host”.
- Claim 20 is objected to because the claim recites “the DTM host” in the tenth limitation. This appears to be a typographical error and should more properly read “a DTM host”.
- Claim 25 is objected to because the claim recites “the DTM host” in the twelfth limitation. This appears to be a typographical error and should more properly read “a DTM host”.
- Claim 26 is objected to because the claim recites “the DTM host” in the tenth limitation. This appears to be a typographical error and should more properly read “a DTM host”.
In each instance, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim as properly reciting “a DTM host”, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because it appears that the claim is missing the last word of the
recitation. The last limitation recites “in response to the expedited clearance transfer message, execute the expedited clearance of the electronic funds associated with the payment transfer message into the beneficiary’s financial.” It appears that this should more appropriately read “…the beneficiary’s financial account.” and will be interpreted in this manner for purposes of examination, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
7. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope.
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. The following italicized limitations are expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited and are not given weight:
As in Claim 1 (and substantially similar Claims 10, 19-20, 25-26):
executing, by at least one processor, a first query on stored datasets and databases to verify account number of the beneficiary, wherein the first query generates a boolean result indicating account validity;
executing, via a processor operating a periodic cron job at predefined intervals, a second query to validate the temporary dataset for new data;
As in Claims 5 (and substantially similar Claims 14 and 24):
the encrypted transfer notification message further comprises information that prompts the beneficiary to agree to the deduction of the service charge fees; and the method further comprising, delaying, by the at least one processor, the transfer of the electronic funds into the beneficiary’s financial account based on pending receipt of the indication of the acceptance from the beneficiary’s computing device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 19-20, 23-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed December 1, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As in Claim 1:
upon find the new data, assigning, via the processor, a universal unique identifier (UUID) to the found new data for:
encryption key generation
sending, over the network, via the at least one processor and to a beneficiary’s computing device which is in communication with a server associated with the beneficiary’s financial institution, an encrypted transfer notification message, using a digital notification protocol (DNP), wherein
the encrypted transfer notification message is transmitted through a digital transportation method (DTM) selected from the beneficiary’s stored notification method preferences, wherein the DNP initiates an open call protocol to the DTM host and establishes a secure connection for transmission of the encrypted transfer notification message, wherein the encrypted transfer notification message indicates that electronic funds payment intended for the beneficiary’s financial account has been initiated by the payer, and comprises a prompt for the beneficiary to select expedited clearance of the intended electronic funds associated with the electronic funds payment request;
verifying the beneficiary associated with the prompt by receiving beneficiary package data via the DNP, and validating the received package data against the stored temporary dataset;
Applicant’s specification does not appear to indicate that a UUID assigned to the found new data is for encryption key generation or generating encryption key as noted in other independent claims. Further, the specification does not indicate that the transfer notification message is encrypted, rather the transaction is encrypted and stored awaiting further instructions. The DNP initiates the open call protocol to the DTM host, however there is no disclosure of a secure connection for transmission of the encrypted transfer notification message as recited in the claims. The specification does note that DNP refers to a protocol that incorporates the sending of an encrypted method in a chain of events, however does not provide specificity as to how that occurs or disclose which part of the chain of methods is being secured. Dependent Claims 5, 7, 14, 16, 24, and 27-28 further recite the encrypted transfer notification message and are further similarly rejected.
The DTM, as disclosed by the specification, includes a wide variety of methods including USSD, SMS, EMAIL, PUSH NOTIFICATION, or any other path meant for two way communication using WIFI, GSM, RFID, NFC or similar digital technologies.” (See Applicant Spec page 25, last paragraph)
Applicant’s Specification further discloses the following:
“On that return, a UUID (Universal Unique Identifier) is assigned to the process 82, and is used as a key throughout the rest of the process [i.e., a data encryption]. The processor 75 uses the available notification method preferences set by the account holder 78 and initiates a transaction via relevant DTM 74, 75, 79, 76,78, 82. The processor 75 waits on the open channel for a response and wraps each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption 82 [i.e., data encryption]. The processor 75 locates a mobile number in stored data set and initiates intention to communication via Soap Call to provider of the chose path 74, 78, 82. The processor 75 loads DTM client and passes through the number 74, 8, 82, 83. (emphasis added)
The DNP initiates the open call protocol to the DTM host 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and when connection is established, pushes through the connection number 88. The DRM uses all available methods to link to the recipient, and sends through an intended notification message 88, 90, 90, 91, 92, 93. The processor stores the encrypted transaction in a data set and awaits further instructions 88, 87.
The Bank 72 typically issues a notification of received funds with opt-in instructions for recipient/beneficiary to clear funds immediately at recipient’s cost. The recipient/beneficiary receives notification via the DNP selected in his/her preferences. Recipient receives the notification via the DTM. This could, for example, be a SMS, push-notification in-app notification, and/or an email. Notification requests the user opt-in via USSD (for this instance, but limited to) protocol. Recipient receives a notification via their selected DTM choice 89, 90, 91, 93. Notification instructs user to opt-in on funds clearance by initiating and dialing a USSD number. SMS notification protocol and path terminated 94. Recipient initiates the transaction by dialing the USSD from his/her mobile device (in the case of USSD) 91, 92, 90, 95, 96.
The USSD DNP receives the recipients package data for verification (Package data includes MSISDN, IE, MSIE, HID, GID and other relevant identification details) 96, 97, 98, 99, 100. USSD DNP sends notification to Bank A 71 server 74 on intention of verification 102. Processor pulls data in the USSD POST info and does validation on data in the dataset stored 75, 78, 76, 79. Processor rejects USSD with return call of false using the open USSD DNP channel, if details do not match, and terminates the session 75, 74, 102, 95, 106; or the processor accepts USSD with return call of true using the open USSD DNP channel, alone with notification step process 75, 74, 102, 95, 90, 91, 92, 93.” (See Applicant Spec page 26, line 25- page 27, line 29)
Therefore, while the specification indicates that a UUID is assigned to the process and is used as a key, this is not encryption key generation as claimed, rather it is a UUID being utilized as a key, not an independent key generation process.
The receipt of the package data is only disclosed in one place in the specification (as seen above) as being via the USSD DNP. Therefore, the recitation is broader than the specification supports as it is not every DNP method, rather only via USSD DNP, which has not been specifically recited.
Similarly, Independent Claims 10, 19-20, and 25-26 recite the substantially similar steps that are similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, 23-24, 27-28 and 32 are further rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
9. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 19-20, 23-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Substantially similar Independent Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite method, system and computer readable storage device claims reciting receiving by a payer in communication with the payer’s financial account at a payer’s financial institution a funds payment request from the payer’s financial account to the beneficiary’s financial account; executing a first query on stored dataset to verify account number of the beneficiary, wherein the first query generates a boolean return result indicating account validity; storing, responsive to a positive boolean return result, the funds payment request in a temporary dataset; executing at predefined intervals, a second query to validate the temporary dataset for new data; upon finding new data, assigning a unique identifier to the found new data for retrieving notification method preferences associated with the beneficiary’s financial account; sending to the beneficiary which is in communication with the beneficiary’s financial institution, a transfer notification message wherein the transfer notification message is transmitted through a transportation method selected from the beneficiary’s stored notification method preferences for transmission of the transfer notification message, wherein the transfer notification message indicates that funds transfer payment intended for the beneficiary’s financial account has been initiated by the payer, and comprises a prompt for the beneficiary to select expedited clearance of the intended funds associated with the funds payment request; verifying the beneficiary associated with the prompt by receiving beneficiary package data, and validating the received package data against the stored temporary dataset; receiving an expedited clearance transfer message in response to a positive selection of the expedited clearance from the beneficiary after verifying the beneficiary; and in response to the expedited clearance transfer message, executing the expedited clearance of the funds associated with the funds payment request into the beneficiary’s financial account.
Substantially similar Independent Claims 20, 25 and 26 recite method, system and computer readable storage device claims reciting receiving at a financial institution associated with a financial account of a beneficiary or a clearing house, a payment transfer message indicating that funds are to be transferred into a financial account of the beneficiary; executing, a first query on stored datasets to verify account number of the beneficiary, wherein the first query generates a boolean return result indicating account validity; storing, responsive to a positive boolean result, the funds payment request in a temporary dataset; executing at predefined intervals, a second query to validate the temporary dataset for new data; upon finding the new data, assigning a unique identifier to the found new data for retrieving notification method preferences associated with the beneficiary’s account; sending to a beneficiary which is in communication with the beneficiary’s financial institution, a transfer notification message, wherein the transfer notification message is transmitted through a transportation method selected from the beneficiary’s stored notification method preferences for transmission of the encrypted transfer notification message, wherein the transfer notification message indicates that funds payment intended for the beneficiary’s financial account has been initiated by the payer, and comprises a prompt for the beneficiary to select expedited clearance of the intended funds associated with the funds payment request; verifying the beneficiary associated with the prompt by receiving beneficiary package data, and validating the received package data against the stored temporary dataset; based on the received beneficiary’s package data; receiving, an expedited clearance transfer message in response to a positive selection of the expedited clearance from the beneficiary after verifying the beneficiary; and in response to the expediting clearance transfer message executing, the expedited clearance of the funds associated with the payment transfer message into the beneficiary financial account.
The series of steps recited in the independent claims describe a fundamental economic practice [fund transfers/fund transfer clearance], a commercial or legal interaction [fund transfers/fund transfer clearance and business relations] and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people [following rules or instructions] and are thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Yes. The claimed invention discloses method, system and computer readable storage device claims as disclosed above.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
As recited above, the series of steps recited in the independent claims describe a fundamental economic practice, a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and are thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a payer’s computing device; at least one processor; databases; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key generation; wrapping each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device; a server; a digital notification protocol, a digital transportation method, an open call protocol, DTM host; an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and the transfer notification message is encrypted.
Claim 10 recites at least one processor; a non-transitory memory device containing instructions; a payer’s computing device; a first server; databases; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key; wrap each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device; a second server; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; an open call protocol; a DTM host; an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and that the transfer notification message is encrypted.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage device, at least one set of computer executable instructions; at least one processor of a computer; a payer’s computing device; a first server; databases; a processor; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key generation; wrapping each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device; a server; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; an open call protocol; a DTM host; an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and that the transfer notification message is encrypted.
Claim 20 recites at least one processor; a server; databases; a processor; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key generation; wrapping each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device; a server; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; an open call protocol; DTM host; an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and the transfer notification message is encrypted.
Claim 25 recites at least one processor; at least one non-transitory memory device containing instructions; a server; databases; a processor; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key; wrap each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device; a second server; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; an open call protocol; DTM host; an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and the transfer notification message is encrypted.
Claim 26 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage device; at least one set of computer executable instructions; at least one processor of a computer; a server; databases; a processor; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key; wrap each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; an open call protocol; DTM host; an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and the transfer notification message is encrypted.
The claims recite a payer’s computing device; at least one processor; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key; wrap(ping) each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device, a server; a first server; a second server; DTM host; a non-transitory memory device; a non-transitory computer-readable storage device; at least one processor of a computer; at least one non-transitory memory device and an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and the transfer notification message is encrypted and are applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recited instructions, databases; at least one set of computer executable instructions; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; and an open call protocol appear to be software. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In particular, the claims only recite a payer’s computing device; at least one processor; a periodic cron job; a UUID; encryption key; wrap(ping) each transaction segment with hash or cipher-text encryption; a beneficiary’s computing device, a server; a first server; a second server; DTM host; a non-transitory memory device; a non-transitory computer-readable storage device; at least one processor of a computer; at least one non-transitory memory device; instructions, databases; at least one set of computer executable instructions; a digital notification protocol; a digital transportation method; and an open call protocol and an indication that the funds payment request is electronic and the transfer notification message is encrypted which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Notably, the systemization is not disclosed to be invented by Applicant, rather the Applicant is utilizing the systemization to perform the steps recited.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 10, 19-20 and 25-26 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); performing repetitive calculations (Bancorp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“To this end, the system 10 is typically communicatively coupled to a bank server A 16 associated with the bank of the beneficiary of the funds, as well as a bank server B 18 associated with the bank of the payer of funds via a suitable communication network 14. Moreover, the system 10 may be in communication with suitable computing devices associated with the beneficiary of funds and the payer of funds, for example endpoint computing devices 20 and 22 associated with the beneficiary and payer respectively also via the network 14.
The communications network 14 may comprise one or more different types of communication networks. In this regard, the communication networks may be one or more of the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), various types of telephone networks (e.g., Public Switch Telephone Networks (PSTN) with Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology) or mobile networks (e.g., Global System Mobile (GSM) communication, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), and other suitable mobile telecommunication network technologies), or any combination thereof. It will be noted that communication within the network may be achieved via suitable wireless or hard-wired communication technologies and/or standards (e.g., wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi®), 4G, long term evolution (LTE™), WiMax, 5G, and the like). In some example embodiments, the system 10 may be coupled to other elements of the network 12 via dedicated communication channels, for example secure communication networks in the form of encrypted communication lines (e.g., SSL (Secure Socket Layer) encryption). The latter may be the case with the system 10 being communicatively coupled to the bank server A 16 and bank server B 18.
The endpoint beneficiary and payer computing devices 20, 22, or any computing device contemplated herein, may comprise one or more computer processors and a computer memory (including transitory computer memory and/or non-transitory computer memory), configured to perform various processing operations. The devices 20, 22 also include a network communication interface (not shown) to connect to the system 10 via the network 14. Examples of the devices represented by the devices 20, 22 may be selected from a group comprising a personal computer, portable computer, smartphone, tablet, notepad, dedicated server computer devices, any type of communication device, and/or other suitable computing devices. It will be appreciated that in some example embodiments, the devices 20, 22 may be connected to network 14 via an intranet, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and the Internet, a cellular network, and/or other suitable network communication technology.” (See Applicant’s Specification page 14, line 3 to page 15, line 9)
“Referring now to Figure 5 of the drawings which shows a diagrammatic representation of machine in the example of a computer system 200 within which a set of instructions, for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein, may be executed. In other example embodiments, the machine operates as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines. In a networked example embodiment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in server-client environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The machine may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine. Further, while only a single machine is illustrated for convenience, the term “machine’ shall also be taken to include any collection of machines, including virtual machines, that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein.
In any event, the example computer system 200 includes a processor 202 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 204 and a static memory 206, which communicate with each other via a bus 208. The computer system 200 may further include a video display unit 210 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer system 200 also includes an alphanumeric input device 212 (e.g., a keyboard), a user interface (UI) navigation device 214 (e.g., a mouse, or touchpad), a disk drive unit 216, a signal generation device 218 (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device 220.” (See Applicant Specification page 28, line 24-page 29, line 9)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1, 10, 19-20 and 25-26 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, 23-24, 27-28 and 32 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1, 10, 19-20 and 25-26 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. Claim 32 further recites a stand-alone clearing system to clear the funds associated with the payment transfer request. The clearing system is recited at a high level of generality and without any particular hardware claimed and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The steps are still receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 19-20, 23-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Applied
Muthu et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0112866) (“Muthu”) - Muthu discloses his invention as to a funds transfer system that implements a payment network that may be utilized by senders to send funds to recipients and by recipients to receive funds. (See Muthu para 18) The funds transfer system may be used for both intrabank (i.e., where sender and recipient both have accounts at the same bank and funds are transferred between accounts within the same bank) and interbank transfers (i.e., transfers in which the sender and recipient have accounts at different banks and the funds are transferred between the accounts at different banks). (See Muthu para 18)
Matson et al. (US Patent 10,636.035) (“Matson”) - Matson discloses his invention as to a payment service configured to support purchase transactions generated by merchant POS devices which can be settled in an expedited or non-expedited manner. (See Matson Abstract) Matson discloses that an indication to the merchant may be made that a quick payment is available for one or more eligible transactions where the action may also comprise activating a control element wherein the control element, when activated, can be selected by the merchant to initiate an expedited payment of the one or more eligible transactions. (See Matson Col. 9, lines 25-54; Col. 10, lines 41-60) Transactions that are not settled by quick deposit are settled on a non-expedited basis, such as by using an overnight batch funds transfer. (See Matson Col. 2, lines 44-50; Col. 10, lines 1-26)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the Reply to the Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment:
Applicant is thanked for the claim set amended as of September 17, 2024 as presented with the instant response. (See Applicant Arguments dated 12/01/2025, page 18) While Examiner is not entirely convinced of Applicant’s position, in order to promote compact prosecution, the instant response as been prepared. (Id. at pages 19-23)
As to the Claim Interpretation Section:
Applicant submits that the claims have been amended and do not reflect an intended result of a process step and should be given full weight. (Id. at page 23) This section has been updated to reflect the latest claim amendments and treated accordingly.
As to the 112(a) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the amendments and clarifications made to address the 112, first paragraph rejections. (Id. at pages 23-26) While some issues have been resolved, others remain and/or have been raised by the instant response as seen in the rejection in chief.
As to the 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the clarification and correction. (Id. at page 26) The rejection has been accordingly withdrawn.
As to the 112(d) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the correction to address the previous rejection. (Id.) The rejection has been accordingly withdrawn.
As to the 101 Rejection:
The 101 rejection has been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments, as seen above.
Applicant disagrees and traverses the assertions of the Office Action, specifically as to the claims describing a fundamental economic practice, a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and concludes that the claims recite patentable subject matter and assert that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to solve a problem of providing a secure expedited clearance of funds with real time validation of the payee and beneficiary ensuring compliance is managed in advance of the payment execution. (Id. at pages 27-28)
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention describes receiving from a payer’s computing device, an electronic funds transfer payment request and then executing a first query on the stored datasets and databases to verify the account number of the beneficiary. (Id. at page 28) Applicant continues, arguing that a successful validation of the beneficiary account generates a positive boolean return result which is stored in a temporary dataset along with the electronic funds payment request. (Id.) This is a matching operation as described by the specification to validate the account number.
Applicant continues, reciting that a periodic cron job is executed by a dedicated processor to query the temporary dataset, and when a new data is found in the temporary dataset, a UUID is allocated to new data; the processor generates encryption key, retrieves notification preference of the beneficiary and encrypt the transaction segment with hash or cypher [sic] text encryption based on the generated encryption key resulting in an encrypted transfer notification. (Id.)
There are some issues with the recitation, as noted in the rejection in chief and it is not clear that there is appropriate support for the transfer notification as being itself encrypted.
Applicant notes that a digital notification protocol is used, along with a digital notification method based on the beneficiary’s selected notification methods. There is no discussion in the specification that Applicant has invented a DNP or DTM, rather this is using those two methodologies as a tool as is the open call protocol. The verification of the beneficiary is validation by comparing the data to the temporary dataset, which is still a data matching function. The selection of expedited clearance is following the rules that the beneficiary has elected to utilize for their electronic funds payment. (Id. at pages 28-29)
The claim is not subject matter eligible under Step 2A, Prong One. Under Prong Two, Applicant argues that the two stage validation solves the problem of providing a secure expedited clearance of funds with real time validation of the payee and the beneficiary ensuring compliance is managed in advance of the payment execution. (Id. at page 29) This rationale has no reference in the specification.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides a secure, automated, and encrypted transaction notification is a technological improvement along with the assignment of a UUID to the found new data. (Id. at page 30) Again, there is an issue with the support for the encryption features Applicant asserts are presented, however there is also no indication that Applicant has invented any of the technological features that they claim are the improvement. Applicant then asserts that the use of UUID-assigned encryption key generation and cipher-text protection provides a real security improvement over conventional financial notification system. (Id) There is no indication of this rationale as a security improvement in the specification.
Applicant further argues that the invention provides automated, periodic validation of transactions and argues that this is a technological improvement. (Id.) A periodic cron job is nothing more than scheduled tasks running at fixed times or intervals. While Applicant argues that financial transaction systems do not use this feature, Examiner is of another opinion. Banking has long used batch and nightly processing to update records. The recitation of a temporary dataset may be nothing more than a designation of “pending” as conventional seen in banking – this is not an improvement, this is use of instructions to update data periodically. This is also different than what is seen in McRO which was performing a process that previously could not be done. (Id.) These are not persuasive arguments.
Applicant then revisits the open call protocol and argues that it is not conventional in traditional financial systems. (Id. at page 31) Examiner reasserts the discussion above. Applicant also argues that the present method dynamically selects the best secure channel for notification delivery and attempts to analogize this with Enfish. (Id.) There is no apparent disclosure of dynamic selection of secure channels for notification delivery in the specification, thus Examiner finds that this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that provision of beneficiary triggered expedited clearance is a technological improvement as claimed. (Id.) Examiner disagrees.
The process of paying for an expedited transfer of funds is not a new concept. One has long been able to take a check received from a payer to a check cashing facility and for a fee instantly receive cash from the check instead of waiting for a deposit to clear through a traditional bank. In this scenario, the payer does not need to be notified or provide an additional verification to enable the check to be cashed. The current process is following directions that the beneficiary of the funds is providing, i.e., to expedite clearance for an agreed upon fee by a systemization that is recited at a high level of generality. When attempting to cash a check, an intended recipient provides identity verification and expedites the transaction, for a fee. The reduction of delay is not rooted in technology, it is rooted in providing a convenience service for a fee.
Applicant then refers to Example 35 for the proposition that the process is not routine and conventional and recites the limitations of Claim 1 as amended. (Id. at pages 32-33) Applicant asserts that the claimed combination of steps operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the beneficiary details are verified in a secure manner. (Id. at pages 33-34) Even as a whole, Examiner is of another opinion.
The invention is a financial transaction method that is initiated by a payer by sending a funds transfer payment. The steps reflect rules applied to the funds transfer being carried out by processors at the direction of the payer and beneficiary.
The manner in which the claims are presented does not perform a transfer in a manner that is significantly more, rather the claims are sending and receiving data and following rules utilizing known systemization. The underlying process, as noted above, is not novel and the invention is merely using known technology to perform a known process. The arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. The 101 rejection is maintained.
As to the 103 Rejections:
There is currently no prior art rejection being applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 March 15, 2026