DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant filed a response dated December 8, 2025 in which claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-16, and 18-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Applicant is advised that the invention claimed in the present application is not disclosed in the parent application. Therefore, the parent application does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. 120 for the invention claimed in the present application and the present application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date. Therefore the effective filing date for the present application is 11/22/2021.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (MPEP 2106). The claims are directed to a system and method which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The recitation of the claimed invention is analyzed as follows, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform: receiving, from a payee system for a payee, a request for a transfer of a digital asset from a payor to the payee, wherein: the payor is associated with a payor user profile of the payee system;
the request comprises a custom transfer token that (a) is temporary, (b) is encrypted at least in part, (c) comprises a unique identifier, (d) is associated with the payor and the payee, (e) is used to inhibit unauthorized use of the custom transfer token and to inhibit fraud, and (f) is convertible into a long-standing token to replace the custom transfer token or a subsequent custom transfer token for one or more subsequent transfers of one or more digital assets from the payor to the payee;
retrieving transfer data based on the custom transfer token, wherein: the transfer data is associated with the custom transfer token, a payor financial institution for the payor, and a selected payor account owned by the payor and maintained by the payor financial institution; and
the transfer data comprises an access token for the payor financial institution and the payor that comprises an expiration date after which the access token becomes unusable, wherein the expiration date for the access token is used to inhibit fraud;
using the access token to access one or more eligible payor accounts owned by the payor and maintained by the payor financial institution, the one or more eligible payor accounts comprising the selected payor account;
determining a fraud risk score for the transfer of the digital asset comprising: analyzing a transfer history of the payee; and determining the fraud risk score by using a first risk model of a shared directory, wherein inputs to the first risk model comprise the custom transfer token and the access token;
transmitting, to a payee financial institution for the payee, the fraud risk score for the transfer of the digital asset, wherein: the payee financial institution is configured to determine a first transfer decision for the transfer of the digital asset based at least on (a) the fraud risk score determined by the first risk model of the shared directory, (b) information about a payee account owned by the payee and maintained by the payee financial institution for the transfer of the digital asset, and (c) a second fraud risk score determined by a second risk model of the payee financial institution;
transmitting, to the payor financial institution for the payor, the fraud risk score for the transfer of the digital asset, wherein the payor financial institution is configured to determine a second transfer decision for the transfer based at least in part on (a) the fraud risk score determined by the first risk model of the shared directory, (b) information about the selected payor account owned by the payor and maintained by the payor financial institution for the transfer of the digital asset, and (c) a third fraud risk score determined by a third risk model of the payor financial institution, wherein the third risk model is different from the first risk model and the second risk model; and
when (1) the first transfer decision comprises an approval of the transfer by the payee financial institution and (2) the second transfer decision comprises an approval of the transfer by the payor financial institution, facilitating the transfer of the digital asset from the selected payor account to the payee account.
The claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to mitigate risk and facilitate the completion of a financial transaction. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1: YES).
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than reciting a “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform:”, “a payee system for a payee”, and “shared directory”, to perform the steps of “requesting”, “associating”, “determining”, “analyzing”, “using”, and “facilitating”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being a certain method for organizing human activity. The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to mitigate risk and facilitate the completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. The additional computer elements recited in the claim limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception utilizing generic computer components.
For example, the Specification at [0079] discloses “In some embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise a single computer, a single server, or a cluster or collection of computers or servers, or a cloud of computers or servers. Typically, a cluster or collection of servers can be used when the demand on computer system 100 exceeds the reasonable capability of a single server or computer. In certain embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise a portable computer, such as a laptop computer. In certain other embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise a mobile electronic device, such as a smartphone. In certain additional embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise an embedded system.” Furthermore, [0082] “In some embodiments, system 300 can include one or more of a system server 310, a first operator server 320, a second operator server 330, a user device 340, and/or a third party device 350. In various embodiments, system server 310, first operator server 320, second operator server 330,user device 340, and/or third party device 350 can each be a computer system, such as computer system 100 (FIG. 1), as described above, and can each be a single computer, a single server, or a cluster or collection of computers or servers, or a cloud of computers or servers. In another embodiment, a single computer system can host each of two or more of system server 310, first operator server 320, second operator server 330,user device 340, and/or third party device 350. Additional details regarding system server 310, first operator server 320, second operator server 330, user device 340, and/or third party device 350 are described herein.”
Thus, the specification supports that general purpose computers or computer components are utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, in viewing the additional elements both individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A prong two: No)
The claim does not include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 of using “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform:”, “a payee system for a payee”, and “shared directory”, to perform the steps of “requesting”, “associating”, “determining”, “analyzing”, “using”, and “facilitating”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to mitigate risk and facilitate the completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Such additional elements are determined to not contain an inventive concept according to MPEP 2106.05(f). It should be noted that (1) the “recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, and (2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice, commercial interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental process, or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus, they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 11 recites that additional elements of “A method implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run at one or more processors and configured to be stored at non-transitory computer-readable media, the method comprising:”.
For similar reasons as explained above with regard to claim 1, under Step 2A, prong two, these additional elements are merely applying generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Under Step 2B, when viewing the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception itself as the claimed computer-related technologies are mere tools for implementing the abstract idea as explained with regard to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely limit the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements beyond the cited abstract idea and the elements addressed above, thus, they do not amount to significantly more. The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 101 rejections for now pending claims 1-20, Examiner notes the following:
Regarding the applicant's argument that the amended features would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant argues that claims provide a “combination of steps that (a) improves the technical field of secure electronic transfer of digital assets while inhibiting fraud and (b) uses the combination of steps in a meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment.”
Examiner notes that the Specification merely discloses the use of generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. For example, the Specification discloses “[0079] In some embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise a single computer, a single server, or a cluster or collection of computers or servers, or a cloud of computers or servers. Typically, a cluster or collection of servers can be used when the demand on computer system 100 exceeds the reasonable capability of a single server or computer. In certain embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise a portable computer, such as a laptop computer. In certain other embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise a mobile electronic device, such as a smartphone. In certain additional embodiments, computer system 100 may comprise an embedded system.” Furthermore, [0082] “In some embodiments, system 300 can include one or more of a system server 310, a first operator server 320, a second operator server 330, a user device 340, and/or a third party device 350. In various embodiments, system server 310, first operator server 320, second operator server 330,user device 340, and/or third party device 350 can each be a computer system, such as computer system 100 (FIG. 1), as described above, and can each be a single computer, a single server, or a cluster or collection of computers or servers, or a cloud of computers or servers. In another embodiment, a single computer system can host each of two or more of system server 310, first operator server 320, second operator server 330,user device 340, and/or third party device 350. Additional details regarding system server 310, first operator server 320, second operator server 330, user device 340, and/or third party device 350 are described herein.”
Furthermore, the additional elements of the computer system - “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform:”, “a payee system for a payee”, and “shared directory”, to perform the steps of “requesting”, “associating”, “determining”, “analyzing”, “using”, and “facilitating”, in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims at issue covers the mitigation of risk to facilitate the completion of a financial transaction. The claims invoke the “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform:”, “a payee system for a payee”, and “shared directory”, to perform the steps of “requesting”, “associating”, “determining”, “analyzing”, “using”, and “facilitating”, merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Thus, the specification supports that general purpose computers or computer components are utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the stated problems of “a faster transfer gives an operator less time to perform due diligence on the transfer by distributing fraud detection processes across multiple entities” is not a technical problem, and the claimed solution is not a technical solution. In the claim, the solution of (1) utilizing a shared directory as an intermediary; (2) utilizing multiple independent risk models; and (3) using a sequential approval process is part of the abstract idea, as it is merely involves collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to mitigate risk and facilitate the completion of a financial transaction. Furthermore, the data manipulation and analysis could be completed mentally or manually by paper or pen.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees, however, and notes that, as explained above in the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, that the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept. The additional elements of the computer system - “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform:”, “a payee system for a payee”, and “shared directory”, to perform the steps of “requesting”, “associating”, “determining”, “analyzing”, “using”, and “facilitating” are merely generic computer components performing their well-known basic functions of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data for mitigation of risk to facilitate the completion of a financial transaction. Per the specification, the recited computer elements and machine learning steps and model are described only at a high level of generality, (see Spec. at paras. [0079]). In view of the specification, the application of the computer elements and machine learning is merely being applied to the abstract idea.
The other limitations which are simply supporting the abstract idea correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity which do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Also, the functionality here is already present in the recited hardware, which is merely routine and conventional. Collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data is routine and conventional. There is no technological problem or solution identified. This is merely a business solution to transfer data between devices. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Furthermore, unlike DDR Holdings, the instant claims do not solve a problem rooted in computer technology. The claims do not solve a problem with a solution “arising in the realm of computer networks", rather, the claims recite utilizing generic computer components -- “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform:”, “a payee system for a payee”, and “shared directory” to perform collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to mitigate risk and facilitate the completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. Such automation of a commercial payment practice using routine computer functions does not constitute a technological improvement and therefore is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is available for review on Form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
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 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 MERRITT J HASBROUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-3109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Christine Tran can be reached on 571-272-8103. 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.
/MERRITT J HASBROUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695