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
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 5/8/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are new.
Prior Art
The prior art does not disclose: wherein the set of sub-parties is not a party to the preconfigured contract between the funding party and the first party and the data further comprises a set of tasks to be performed for the funding party; receive data defining a logical structure between the first party and the set of sub-parties and store the data defining the logical structure in the memory of the apparatus, the logical structure based on a contractual relationship between the first party and the set of sub-parties; receive, from the first party, request data comprising a tuple defining at least one of a payment request, a payment party, and a payment amount, receipt of the request data indicative of at least one task being complete; process, using the processor of the apparatus, the request data to parse a set of payment information for the first party and the set of sub-parties; compare the payment information to the data defining the data structure and determining at least one entry in the data structure that comprises an approved funding source of the payment request; execute a payment order to at least the first party and the set of sub-parties, wherein execution of the payment order transfers a payment associated with the at least one completed task and funded by the funding instance directly to both the first party and the set of sub-parties; and modify at least one entry of the data structure, to reflect execution of the payment order.
The closest prior art is Dulori (2020/00234380). The closet NPL is “Mobile payments: Current and emerging regulatory and contracting issues, “ R Kemp - Computer Law & Security Review, 2013 – Elsevier.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In response, the Examiner disagrees.
Claim 6 recite(s) receiving, storing, performing, processing, comparing, executing, and modifying steps carried out by a processor and apparatus, which can be any computer, and thus, it is a general purpose computer carrying out the steps of claim. (See Spec. p. 12, line 29 to p.13, line 11).
Claim 6 falls into the category of commercial interactions (hierarchical payment structures—Spec. p.1, line 5). The claim is directed to a judicial exception to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a medium and apparatus and mimic independent claim 6 and are patent ineligible.
None of the dependent claims alters the outcome that the claimed inventions are directed to ineligible abstract ideas, as the dependent claims fall within the abstract idea of executing payment orders.
The additional wherein steps of claim 6 do not add more to the claim to take it out of the realm of abstraction. The steps are performed to execute payment to the correct recipients. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 6 recite(s) receiving, storing, performing, processing, comparing, executing, and modifying steps carried out by a processor and apparatus, which can be any computer, and thus, it is a general purpose computer carrying out the steps of claim. (See Spec. p. 12, line 29 to p.13, line 11).
Claims 1-20 are ineligible.
The Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Example 42. In response, the Examiner disagrees. Unlike Example 42, the present claims are directed to “managing contractual payment between parties in construction, building or development projects.” (Spec. ¶ 1), which falls into the category of commercial interactions. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible.
Examiner does not agree with applicant that the invention solves a technical problem. The claims are not directed to a technical problem but rather a business problem (contractual payments) which is solved by a computing environment that decouples the flow of funds from contractual privity. The Specification discloses that the operation of the steps can be performed by computer program instructions provided to a general purpose computer (see originally filed specification page 12 lines 29-30). As such, the Specification does not disclose an improvement to these computer components themselves. The improvement touted by applicant is an improvement to the field of finance, specifically contractual payments, rather than an improvement to the computer components used to make the payments or enforce contracts. The computer components are not improved. And “[n]o matter how much of an advance in the . . . field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163. Although applicant argues that the invention’s ability to replace a flawed manual structure a technical improvement, there is no evidence that this ability is a result of improvement to the computing environment.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recite(s) defining, receiving, storing, performing, processing, comparing, executing, and modifying steps carried out by a processor and apparatus, which can be any computer, and thus, it is a general purpose computer carrying out the steps of claim. (See Spec. p. 12, line 29 to p.13, line 11).
Claim 6 falls into the category of commercial interactions (hierarchical payment structures—Spec. p.1, line 5). The claim is directed to a judicial exception to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a medium and apparatus and mimic independent claim 6 and are patent ineligible.
None of the dependent claims, 2-5, 7-10 nor 12-20, alters the outcome that the claimed inventions are directed to ineligible abstract ideas, as the dependent claims fall within the abstract idea of executing payment orders.
The additional wherein steps of claim 6 do not add more to the claim to take it out of the realm of abstraction. The steps are performed to execute payment to the correct recipients. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 6 recite(s) receiving, defining, storing, performing, processing, comparing, executing, and modifying steps carried out by a processor and apparatus, which can be any computer, and thus, it is a general purpose computer carrying out the steps of claim. (See Spec. p. 12, line 29 to p.13, line 11).
Claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stewart discloses hierarchical payment structures. Clemens et al. disclose payment management. Harrison et al. disclose a method for noncustodial trading of digital assets of a digital asset exchange. Sarin discloses multi tenants payment refresh tokens.
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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691