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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to remarks received 06/26/2026.
The earliest priority date are the filings received 11/04/2022.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 2-7, 9-15 & 17-20 are dependent claims of either one of independent claims 1, 8, 16 & 21.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas because the claimed operations involving multiple computing devices, including generating and displaying a shared virtual reality environment, measuring virtual distance, modifying the virtual reality environment, and related operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues that the Office Action oversimplifies the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.
The Examiner acknowledges that the amended claims include limitations that are not appropriately characterized as mental processes; however, the rejection is maintained because claims 1 and 8 recite authorizing and conducting a peer-to-peer currency transfer between users; claim 16 recites authorizing and conducting a transfer associated with a purchasable item; and claim 21 recites authorizing and conducting a peer-to-peer currency transfer and authenticating a participant in connection with that transfer. Thus, the claims recite commercial interactions involving financial transactions falling within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Although Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any of the enumerated sub-groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, the claimed authorization and performance of currency transfers constitute commercial interactions involving financial transactions. The technological limitations identified by Applicant are considered as additional elements under Step 2A, Prong Two rather than being disregarded from eligibility analysis.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the claimed operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not overcome the rejection because the present rejection does not depend upon characterization of those technological operations as mental processes. Rather, the identified judicial exception is the commercial interaction recited by the claims. The amended limitations therefore do not remove the claims from the enumerated abstract idea grouping under Step 2A, Prong One.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed combination of user devices, servers, graphical user interfaces, and shared virtual reality environment provides a specific manner of authorizing and performing transfers, including measuring virtual distance between virtual reality items, applying distance and time thresholds, displaying a temporal indicator, and displaying a graphical indication upon completion of the transfer. Applicant additionally relies on Specification paragraph [0003] and asserts that these features make financial transfers easier within a virtual reality environment, minimize the complexity of user inputs, and prevent unwanted accidental transfers. Applicant also analogizes the claims to USPTO Example 37 concerning relocation of icons on a graphical user interface. Applicant further argues that the contactless transaction card and authentication limitations of claim 21 help ensure that the transfer is intended and not accidental or fraudulent. Applicant further argues that the claims apply the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment and are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the recited virtual reality and graphical-interface limitations establish conditions for authorizing the underlying financial transaction and visually communicate the status and completion of that transaction. Although the claims recite a particular manner of implementing the transaction in a virtual reality environment, the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the user devices, servers, graphical user interfaces, virtual reality rendering or processing, or other computer technology itself. The asserted benefits of making financial transfers easier, reducing the complexity of user inputs, and preventing unwanted accidental transfers concern the manner in which the user authorizes and conducts the financial transaction rather than an improvement to the operation of the underlying computer or virtual reality technology. Accordingly, the claimed combination uses the technological components and virtual reality environment to implement and facilitate the underlying commercial interaction rather than integrating the interaction into a technological improvement.
With respect to claim 21, the additionally recited contactless transaction card, NFC communication and cryptographic-key authentication provide a particular mechanism for authenticating the first user before initiation of the peer-to-peer transfer. However, the claim uses those technologies to verify authorization of the underlying financial transaction rather than reciting an improvement to the operation or security of the contactless card, NFC communication, cryptographic processing, or computing system itself. Applicant’s reliance on USPTO Example 37 is likewise not persuasive because eligibility is determined based on the particular limitations and technological improvement recited by the claim under examination. Unlike the improvement to graphical user interface functionality illustrated by Example 37, the presently claimed graphical and virtual reality operations are used to establish authorization conditions and communicate the status and completion of the underlying financial transaction.
Therefore, when considered as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more because the claimed combination constitutes an inventive concept and allegedly performs the transfer authorization in an unconventional manner. Applicant relies on the combination of user devices, servers, shared virtual reality environment, graphical user interfaces, virtual-distance measurements, distance and time thresholds, modification of the virtual reality environment. Applicant further relies on Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and argues that whether an element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a question of fact. Applicant also argues that implementation using generic computing devices alone is insufficient without considering the remaining claim limitations and the claims as a whole.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims have been considered both with respect to the individual additional elements and as an ordered combination. The processors, memory, servers, user devices, and graphical user interfaces perform the claimed operations of receiving, processing, transmitting, and displaying information, while the virtual reality environment, virtual-distance and time thresholds, temporal indicator, and graphical animation implement and visually communicate authorization and execution of the underlying commercial interaction. Claim 21 additionally uses a contactless transaction card, NFC communication, and cryptographic authentication to authenticate a participant before initiation of the transaction. The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of these technological components themselves, and considering the additional elements together does not change their function in the claims from implementing, authenticating, and visually representing the underlying financial transaction. Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept. Applicant’s arguments therefore do not overcome the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claims 1, 8, 16 & 21 are directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 8 recite a series of steps for authorizing and conducting a peer-to-peer currency transfer between users, including receiving selection associated with user accounts and currencies receiving transfer information, determining whether the peer-to-peer transfer is authorized. These limitations recite a commercial interaction involving a financial transactions and therefore fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim 16 similarly recites authorizing and conducting a transfer associated with a purchasable item, including determining whether the transfer is authorized, retrieving transfer information regarding the purchasable item and store account information, and transmitting user account information, store account information, and transfer information to a payment processor. These limitations likewise recite a commercial interaction and therefore fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim 21 similarly recites authorizing and conducting a peer-to-peer currency transfer between first and second users. The claim further requires authenticating the first user to verify authorization of the peer-to-peer transfer using a contactless transaction card. The underlying peer-to-peer transfer and authorization thereof constitute a commercial interaction and therefore fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The particular technological mechanisms recited for carrying out the interaction, including the virtual reality environment and contactless authentication, are considered as additional elements under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For claims 1 and 8, the additional elements include the first and second user devices, one or more servers, processors and memory, the shared virtual reality environment displayed through first and second graphical user interfaces, measuring a virtual distance between virtual reality items, determining whether the virtual distance remains below a predetermined distance threshold for a predetermined period of time, displaying a temporal indicator while the authorization condition is being satisfied, and displaying an animation and visual representation upon acceptance of the transfer. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The user devices, servers, processors, memory, and graphical user interfaces provide the computing environment through which the commercial interaction is performed. The virtual distance and time thresholds establish conditions governing authorization of the underlying transfer, while the temporal indicator and subsequent animation visually communicate the status and completion of the transaction. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer, server, graphical user interface, or virtual reality technology itself, but instead use those technologies to implement and visually represent the underlying commercial interaction. Accordingly, considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 16 additionally recites a user device, one or more servers, processors and memory, a shared virtual reality environment, measuring virtual distance between a virtual reality item and a purchasable item, applying predetermined distance and time thresholds, displaying a temporal indicator, retrieving transfer information regarding the purchasable item and store account information, transmitting information to a payment processor, and displaying an animation and visual representation upon acceptance of the transfer. These additional elements use the virtual reality environment and computing components to establish conditions governing authorization of a commercial purchase transaction and to visually communicate the status and completion of that transaction. The claim does not recite a technological improvement to virtual reality processing, computer functionality, or graphical user interface operation itself. Rather, the additional elements apply the commercial interaction within a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 21 further recites a contactless transaction card associated with the first user and requires authenticating the first user to verify that the peer-to-peer transfer is authorized by transmitting, from the first user device to the contactless transaction card via near field communication (NFC), a request for authentication information, receiving authentication information generated by contactless transaction card using a cryptographic key, and verifying or receiving verification of the authentication information. These additional limitations provide a particular mechanism for authenticating the first user in connection with authorization of the underlying peer-to-peer transfer. However, the claim uses the contactless transaction card, NFC communication, and cryptographic authentication to authenticate a participant in the commercial interaction rather than reciting an improvement to the operation or security of the contactless card, NFC communication, cryptographic processing, or computing system itself. Likewise, the claimed virtual reality distance and time conditions establish when the underlying transfer may be authorized, and the temporal indicator and transfer animation visually communicate the status and completion of the transaction. Considered individually and in combination, these additional elements apply the underlying commercial interaction using technological tools and within a virtual reality environment rather than improving the operation of those technologies. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that, individually or as an ordered combination, 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 computer processors, memory, servers, user devices, and graphical user interfaces perform their ordinary computing functions of receiving, processing, storing, transmitting, and displaying information. The virtual reality environment, virtual distance and time thresholds, temporal indicators, and graphical animations implement and visually communicate the authorization and execution of the underlying commercial transactions rather than providing an improvement to the operation of the computing or virtual reality technology. As for independent claim 21, the contactless transaction card, NFC communication, and cryptographic-key authentication provide technological mechanisms for authenticating a user in connection with the transaction, but the claim does not recite an improvement to those authentication technologies themselves. Rather, those elements are used according to their respective functions to authenticate the user before initiating the peer-to-peer transfer. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the remaining limitations, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 21 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The dependent claims have also been considered separately based on the additional limitations recited therein and, when considered individually and as a whole in combination with the limitations of their respective independent claims, do not alter the subject matter eligibility determination. The additional limitations further define the manner in which the underlying commercial transactions are authorized, authenticated, initiated, communicated, or visually represented. To the extent the dependent claims additionally recite technological elements, including contactless transaction cards, NFC communication, cryptographic keys or cryptograms, authentication gestures, biometric information, virtual reality QR codes, and associated computing operations, such elements are used to perform their respective functions in furtherance of the underlying commercial transaction rather than to recite an improvement to the operation of those technologies themselves. Accordingly, the additional limitations, considered individually and in combination with the limitations from which they depend, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, when the claims are considered as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. Therefore, the claims 1-21 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 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 on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights