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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 2nd of October 2025.
Claim 1 was previously cancelled.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 were newly amended.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2nd of October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 2-21, Applicant amended the limitation “…monitor one or more sources of data associated with the first user; wherein monitoring the one or more sources of data is based on establishing communication sessions with the one or more sources of data via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs).” and further argued “…the functionalities of establishing communication sessions with data sources via APIs, to access data, and using the same to dynamically, and in real-time, generate repayment option is not a human activity. These steps did not and cannot be implemented without computer technology. Humans cannot establish API calls and consequently cannot generate, in real-time, repayment options for a source of fund, as recited in claim 2.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if the steps of the claim are performed using a computer technology and not by human, merely using the computer technology as tool to implement the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regard to the limitations of claims 2-21, Applicant argues “…The instant specification provides, in part, The payment service system allows for a more expansive array of payment options, transactions that are completed more quickly and accurately by reducing the communication and processing times needed for computing system of various parties to authorize and process transactions and simplifies the interactions and interface that a user must engage within order to prepare and request the transaction .” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This might be a business solution but not a technological solution to a technological problem.
With regard to the limitations of claims 2-21, Applicant argues “…the technical advantage of faster processing of transactions and reduced communication and processing times, is a direct result of the system dynamically and in real-time, determining repayment options based on data received from different sources. In turn what allows the ability for the system to dynamically determine, in real-time, repayment options, is the use of APIs to establish communication sessions with sources that provide the data.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserted that the technical benefit lies in faster transaction processing, as the reduced communication time merely reflects the use of computing technology as a tool to implement repayment options. However, this is simply an expected outcome of incorporating conventional computing elements into the claims, rather than a genuine technological improvement.
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 2-21 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 claim 2, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“….receive….transaction data associated with a transaction of a first user of the system, wherein the transaction data includes an identifier associated with the first user and an amount of the transaction; identify, using the identifier, a fist user account of the first user, wherein the first user account is associated with a balance; determine that the amount of the transaction will cause the balance associated with the first user account to satisfy a threshold; based at least in part on determining that the user account satisfies a condition and that the transaction will cause the balance associated with the first user account to satisfy the threshold, identify an additional source of funds, wherein the additional source of funds is provided, at least in part, by a second user of the system having a second user account; monitor one or more sources of data associated with the first user…; dynamically adjust, in real-time repayment terms for repayment of the additional source of funds based on the one or more sources of data, wherein one or more communicatively coupled components of the system is used for the repayment of the additional source of funds; generate a first interactive prompt on a first graphical user interface on a first user device of the first user to (1) communicate the repayment terms to the first user, and (2) enable access to and management of the additional source of funds; generate a second interactive prompt on a second graphical user interface on a second user device of the second user, via which the additional source of funds can be authorized; receive a communication from the first graphical user interface indicating acceptance of the repayment terms; receive an authorization for the additional source of funds via the second interactive prompt on the second user device; process the transaction using the funds associated with the balance and the additional source of fund authorized via the interactive prompt; based at least on processing the transaction using the funds associated with the balance and funds associated with the additional source of funds, update the balance of the first user account and determining an amount to be repaid by the first user to at least one of the second user account or the system; receive an indication of a deposit of funds associated with the first user account of the first user; and withhold a portion of the deposit of funds as repayment for at least a portion of the amount to be repaid by the first user based on the repayment terms.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely transaction payment in portions and repayment to second entity. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., processors, graphical user interface, communicatively coupled components of the system, API, establishing communication sessions). “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/processes (e.g., processors, graphical user interface, communicatively coupled components of the system, API, establishing communication sessions) 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, graphical user interface, communicatively coupled components of the system, API, establishing communication sessions) 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, graphical user interface, communicatively coupled components of the system, API, establishing communication sessions) 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.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 9 and 16.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 3, 10, and 17, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define the transaction as, “…wherein: the transaction comprises at least one of: (a) a provision of funds via a debit card to another user of the system, or (b) payment for a purchase using the debit card; and the identifier corresponds at least to information associated with the debit card…” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 11, and 18, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims further recite receiving additional data as “wherein the deposit of funds associated with the first user first account of the first user is received via at least one of: an incoming payroll payment, a deposit activity, a cash flow associated with equities or securities, or a peer-to-peer transaction associated with the first user account of the first user…” The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (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)).
For claims 5, 12, and 19, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further recite determining a repayment schedule as, “…wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the repayment terms based at least on determining payroll information associated with the first user account of the first user…” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 6, 13, and 20, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further recite providing additional source of funds as, “…wherein the additional source of funds is provided based at least on receiving, from the second device associated with the second user, an offer to provide funds…” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 7, 14 and 21, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further recite determining that the user account satisfies the condition as, “…wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the first user account satisfies the condition by at least one of: determining that the first user account is configured to receive incoming payroll deposits for the first user periodically; or determining, based on a transaction history of the first user, that an incoming cash flow for the first user account of the first user meets a requirement…” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 8, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further defines repayment terms as “wherein the repayment terms are determined based on at least one of: a transaction history of the first user, or a transaction history of the second user…” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 15, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further defines the additional source of funds and repayment terms as “wherein the additional source of funds is provided by the second user and repayment terms for are determined based on at least one of: a transaction history of the first user, or a transaction history of the second user…” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 11/29/2025