DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR §1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on September 15, 2025 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated July 11, 2024 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on September 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 3 and 20 are cancelled. No claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-19 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-19 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.
In sum, claims 1-2 and 4-19are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 14-19) and a machine (claims 1-2 and 4-13), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of crediting and debits vendor and consumer accounts based on an amount of change carried over in a transaction by:
at least one vendor account associated with a vendor profile and a plurality of consumer accounts associated with a plurality of consumer profiles;
distributing a vendor application, where the vendor application is associated with the at least one vendor profile, wherein the vendor can add money to the vendor account and wherein the vendor can enter the transaction amount, the cash amount, and a hard cash change amount;
displaying a QR code…;
distributing a consumer application, the consumer application being associated with at least one of the plurality of consumer profiles and comprising a consumer identifier that identifies the consumer account, wherein the consumer device uses the consumer application program to scan the QR code and communicate the consumer identifier to the vendor and the vendor application, and the vendor account initiates a request to debit at least some of the change amount from the vendor account and credit the same amount to the consumer account; and
crediting and debiting vendor accounts and consumer accounts in response to requests received from at least one of the vendor application and the consumer application; and
printing a check paid to the consumer when the consumer account reaches a predetermined balance and mailing the check to an address provided by the consumer.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., crediting and debits vendor and consumer accounts based on an amount of change carried over in a transaction).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 is nearly identical to independent claim 14 so the same analysis applies to claim 1 as well. Claim 1 contains additional elements not present in claim 14 such as “device” which is being used to merely implement (“apply it”) the abstract idea itself as noted in claim 14.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “platform,” “display,” “interface,” “device,” and “program” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0025] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2, 4–13, and 15–19 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes how the amount to be debited and credited is input into the vendor interface. This is the specific generic mechanism being used to carry out the transaction by providing input data in the form of amount that is to be debited and credited. Dependent claims 4 and 15 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 as they describe how money is added to the vendor account (through “a gateway credit card transaction”). Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes what the devices are (“smart phones”). Dependent claims 6 and 17 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that they describe that a notice or confirmation is sent out that is confirming the completed transaction. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes that the consumer selects the predetermined balance amount. Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that they describe that the amount of change debited is added up over a certain period of time. Dependent claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes that the vendor and consumer application programs are in the form of mobile apps. Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that they describe administrator access to certain operations of the platform. Dependent claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes the type of application of the administrator program. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes the use of an administrator dashboard. Dependent claim 12 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes that the vendor program allows the vendor to manage access to the vendor profile. Dependent claim 13 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 in that it describes the vendor interface being one of a web-based and device-based interface.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The examiner considers the following reference(s) pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
1. SHENOY et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0180324) teaches a method for processing change in a transaction. However, unlike in the current invention, SHENOY does not make use of separate vendor and consumer devices to carry out the change transaction with the vendor initiating the change transaction and then issuing “a check or credit to an outside banking account of the consumer when the consumer account reaches a predetermined balance.”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on September 15, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “[t]he claimed invention provides significantly more than merely crediting and debiting vendor and consumer accounts based on an amount of change carried over in a transaction. Rather, the claimed invention addresses the challenge of carrying out secure cash transactions without the time loss and inconvenience of carrying heavy, bulky, coin change.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p.8). However, using various accounts to then provide funds to a user in lieu of physical change is not a technological improvement to computer technology. This is merely exchanging funds from one account to another based on various transactions that have taken place. It is just changing the form of payment rather than improving upon how the payment is conducted. Using a QR code to initiate communications and then printing the check is merely a generic method in order to carry out the abstract idea noted in claim 14. Applicant also states that “[t]he Federal Circuit and the examples based on Federal Circuit case law are clear that such claims are allowable.” Id. The Applicant relies on boilerplate conclusory statements without providing any specifics on how this case is similar to these unnamed Federal Circuit cases.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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 at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696