DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is in response to a Request for Continued Examination dated February 25, 2026. Claims 1, 9 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1: The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 9 which is illustrative of independent claims 1and 20 recites:
“9. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving a first transaction request for a first two-party transaction between a customer and a first party that would also result in a first obligation payment to a third party;
atomically completing the first two-party transaction; and as part of atomically completing the first two-party transaction resulting in a payment by the customer to the first party:
determining using first data from the first transaction request to query a first database,
responsive to determining the first party responsible for paying the first obligation payment, increasing a balance of an obligations account associated with the first party to incorporate the first obligation payment; providing a first cryptographic check capable of verifying that all or part of the first transaction request has not been altered;
validating the first cryptographic check to verify that all or part of the first transaction request has not been altered;
presenting a first approval link associated with the first transaction to the customer; and
increasing a hold on a financial account associated with the first party based on the balance of the obligations account, wherein completing the first two-party transaction is prevented unless the first :cryptographic check is successfully validated, wherein the first two-party transaction is completed atomically responsive to receiving a first approval from the customer via the first approval link without generating a payment transaction resulting in a payment to the third party; and
locking a transaction record associated with the first two-party transaction until at least the hold on the financial account is successfully adjusted, wherein, responsive to the hold on the financial account not being successfully adjusted, the transaction record is maintained in a locked state and completion of the first two-party transaction is withheld;
presenting a first approval link associated with the first transaction to the customer and
receiving a second transaction request related to a second two-party transaction between the first party and the second party; wherein the second transaction request includes transaction verification information comprising one or more cryptographic c:hecks;
atomically completing the second two-party transaction; and as part of atomically completing the second two-party transaction: determining a second obligation payment to the third party associated with the second two-party transaction;
determining, using second data from the second transaction request to query the first database that the
provide a second cryptographic check capable of verifying that all or part of the second transaction request has not been altered:
validating the second cryptographic check to verify that all or part of the second transaction request has not been altered;
decreasing the balance of the obligations account associated with the first party based on the second obligation payment: and
decreasing the hold on the financial account associated with the first party based on the balance of the obligations account, wherein completing the second two-party transaction is prevented unless the second cryptographic check is successfully validated; and
locking a transaction record associated with the second two-party transaction until it least the hold on the financial account is successfully adjusted; wherein, if the hold on the financial account is not successfully adjusted, the transaction record is maintained in a locked state and completion of the second two-party transaction is withheld.
2A, Prong One, It is a certain method of organizing human activity that is a fundamental economic practice or and a commercial or legal interaction in which there is a funds transfer transaction or payout to a third-party processor.(App. Spec. paras. 0030-0032).
Evaluating received information against the existing data as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
Limitations (a)-(p) describe steps a person would take in assessing the payouts due parties to a transaction based on defined criteria and displaying the results (see App. Spec. paras. 0030-0034).
[0030] Third parties who are owed obligations may not be present for all transactions that trigger a financial obligation on their behalf. In such instances, one of the parties in the transaction may be responsible for providing a report of transactions and resulting obligation payments owed. However, third parties may have difficulty verifying the accuracy of such reports, as the third parties are not present for the underlying transactions, which can lead to payment evasion and foregone obligation payments. Furthermore, parties who owe financial obligations to third parties may often lack systems to automatically collect and process funds for obligation payments that are due. In particular, typical sales systems may collect information necessary to determine the total amount of obligation payments owed over a specified period, but the third parties are typically still responsible for ensuring that sufficient funds are reserved to cover these obligations. Therefore, there exists a need for an automated system that determines obligation payments owed to third parties and ensures that sufficient funds are reserved for fulfillment of the obligation payments owed. Examples of such situations may include sales or VAT or GST tax payments, royalty payments, usage fees on rented equipment, and/or various types of service or support fees.
[0031] One solution to this problem is to provide an automated system, into which a third party owed an obligation may have visibility, that automatically calculates and processes payments for transactions between parties. The system may be configured to maintain atomicity of the financial transactions by, e.g., processing obligation payments at the time that the transaction payment itself is processed. During the atomic processing of the transaction, obligation payments themselves may be processed using an obligations account that tracks a balance of obligations that a particular party to a transaction owes to the third party. As a result of the transaction, the balance of the obligations account may be updated. A hold on a financial account associated with the particular party may be updated based on the updated balance of the obligations account. The above process may all be completed as part of the atomic payment transaction, thereby insuring compliance to third party payment obligation. At regular intervals, funds may be transferred from the financial account to an obligation collections account associated with the third party, and the balance of the obligations account and hold on the financial account may be reset.
[0032] FliGs. 1A-1B illustrate systems 100A-B (collectively the system 100) according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The system 100 may be configured to atomically process transaction requests such that payments are processed with corresponding obligation payments. In particular, the system 100 may be configured to process transmission requests for two-party transactions while also processing obligation payments owed to third parties as a result of the two-party transactions. The system 100 includes several computing devices 102, 104, 106, 107, a database 114, and a data storage 116.
[0033] The computing device 104 may be configured to receive transaction requests 118 from other computing devices 102. For example, the transaction requests 118 may be received from computing devices 102 associated with users seeking to complete a transaction. In certain implementations, the transactions may include, e.g., purchases on an online storefront, electronically processed payments for in-person purchases, credit card transactions at a point-of- sale device, payments to a contractor according to an agreement, income payments to an individual, and the like. These transactions may be staged or created, e.g., via payment platforms provided and/or displayed via an API 108 which may include both a payment platform API (e.g. Stripe API, Paypal API, or other payment platform API) and a point of sale API (e.g., a Shopify API, WooCommerce API, or other point of sale API)... For example, the point of sale API may gather information about the transaction and third party payments due, and the payment platform API actually performs the payment based on the gather information. Such payments may trigger obligation payments to a third party, such as royalty payments, income garnishment, subcontractor payments, tax payments, and the like.
[0034] The transaction request 118 may contain information regarding the transaction to be completed and processed. For example, and referring to FIG. 2, the transaction requests 118 may include one or more of payer information 202, seller information 204, an obligation payment amount 206, and verification information 208. The payer information 202 may identify a paying party to the requested transaction. For example, the payer information 202 may include a numeric identifier (e.g., a tax ID, a business identification number, the unique numeric identifier) of a paying party, a name of a paying party, payment information for processing a payment from the paying party (e.g., a credit card, bank account, or other financial account used to fund the payment), or any other identifier of the paying entity in the transaction. The seller information 204 may identify a selling party to the requested transaction. For example, the seller information 204 may include a numeric identifier (e.g., a tax ID, a business identification number, the unique numeric identifier) of a selling party, a name of a selling party, payment information for receiving a payment from the paying party (e.g., a bank account or other financial account used to receive funds from the paying party), or any other identifier of the selling entity in the transaction. The obligation payment amount 206 may include a total amount to be paid to a third party (e.g., to be paid by the seller and/or to be paid by the buyer) as a result of the requested transaction. In certain implementations, in addition or alternative to the obligation payment amount 206, the transaction request 118 may include a total payment amount for the transaction request 118. For example, the total payment amount may reflect a total payment the payer will provide the seller under the requested transaction. The transaction request 118 may also include verification information 208. The verification information 208 may include information to verify that the contents of the transaction request 118 have not been altered after being generated by the computing device 102. For example, the verification information 208 may include one or more cryptographic checks (e.g., checksums, hashes, cryptographic signatures, and the like) that may be used to verify that all or part of the transaction request 118 has not been altered.
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing device (processor, network- see App. Spec. paras. 0078-0079, 0082), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Moreover as part of the verification process,….
” The transaction request 118 may also include verification information 208. The verification information 208 may include information to verify that the contents of the transaction request 118 have not been altered after being generated by the computing device 102. For example, the verification information 208 may include one or more cryptographic checks (e.g., checksums, hashes, cryptographic signatures, and the like) that may be used to verify that all or part of the transaction request 118 has not been altered.” (App. Spec. para. 0037)
0038] After receiving a transaction request 118, the computing device 104 may be configured to atomically process payment of the transaction and of one or more obligation payments owed as a result of the requested transaction. In particular, the computing device 104 may stage payment between two parties in the requested transaction. For example, based on information contained within the transaction request 118 (e.g., payer information, seller information), the computing device 104 may identify one or more financial accounts to be used in processing payments between the parties of the transaction. For example, and as explained further below, the financial accounts used to stage the payment may be identified based on information contained within the database 114. The staged payment may then be processed along with the obligation payment triggered by the transaction (e.g., after receiving final approval from a buyer or paying party). .” (App. Spec. para. 0038)
This suggests a transaction between two parties with a third party payment processor or escrow holder and the type or format of the elements that are verified as part of the evaluation process.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which the payment requests are determined and not one of a technology or technological field. Data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), irrespective of the complexity and/or granularity of the data.
Absent is any support for the claims as recited for the execution of the atomically processing and how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the process of identifying parties to a transaction and availability of funds to be made through the third-party payment processor (see App. Spec. paras. 0030-0032).
Moreover, the limitations which recite:
(d) responsive to determining the first party responsible for paying the first obligation payment, increasing a balance of an obligations account associated with the first party to incorporate the first obligation payment; providing a first cryptographic check capable of verifying that all or part of the first transaction request has not been altered;
(e) validating the first cryptographic check to verify that all or part of the first transaction request has not been altered;
presenting a first approval link associated with the first transaction to the customer; and
(f) increasing a hold on a financial account associated with the first party based on the balance of the obligations account, wherein completing the first two-party transaction is prevented unless the first :cryptographic check is successfully validated, wherein the first two-party transaction is completed atomically responsive to receiving a first approval from the customer via the first approval link without generating a payment transaction resulting in a payment to the third party; and
(g) locking a transaction record associated with the first two-party transaction until at least the hold on the financial account is successfully adjusted, wherein, responsive to the hold on the financial account not being successfully adjusted, the transaction record is maintained in a locked state and completion of the first two-party transaction is withheld;
(h) presenting a first approval link associated with the first transaction to the customer and
(i) receiving a second transaction request related to a second two-party transaction between the first party and the second party; wherein the second transaction request includes transaction verification information comprising one or more cryptographic c:hecks;
;
seem to be directed to additional descriptive details of the checks and balances related to tracking the activity of the obligations account which can be likened to an escrow account. Any withdrawals from this account will result in an adjustment of the existing balance based on payouts.
Absent is any support for how “presenting a first approval link… and receiving a first approval from the customer...” this amounting to an improvement to the technology.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of funds transfer and escrow or third-party payment processing because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are computer device which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 2-5 and 13-16 describe different types of details about the different parties to the transaction identification used in the evaluation. These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-8 and 10-19 which fall with claims 1, 9 and 20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 9, which is illustrative of the independent claims including 1 and 20 and recites:
“9. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving a first transaction request for a first two-party transaction between a customer and a first party that would also result in a first obligation payment to a third party;
atomically completing the first two-party transaction; and as part of atomically completing the first two-party transaction resulting in a payment by the customer to the first party:
determining using first data from the first transaction request to query a first database,
responsive to determining the first party responsible for paying the first obligation payment, increasing a balance of an obligations account associated with the first party to incorporate the first obligation payment; providing a first cryptographic check capable of verifying that all or part of the first transaction request has not been altered;
validating the first cryptographic check to verify that all or part of the first transaction request has not been altered;
presenting a first approval link associated with the first transaction to the customer; and
increasing a hold on a financial account associated with the first party based on the balance of the obligations account, wherein completing the first two-party transaction is prevented unless the first :cryptographic check is successfully validated, wherein the first two-party transaction is completed atomically responsive to receiving a first approval from the customer via the first approval link without generating a payment transaction resulting in a payment to the third party; and
locking a transaction record associated with the first two-party transaction until at least the hold on the financial account is successfully adjusted, wherein, responsive to the hold on the financial account not being successfully adjusted, the transaction record is maintained in a locked state and completion of the first two-party transaction is withheld;
presenting a first approval link associated with the first transaction to the customer and
receiving a second transaction request related to a second two-party transaction between the first party and the second party; wherein the second transaction request includes transaction verification information comprising one or more cryptographic c:hecks;
atomically completing the second two-party transaction; and as part of atomically completing the second two-party transaction: determining a second obligation payment to the third party associated with the second two-party transaction;
determining, using second data from the second transaction request to query the first database that the
provide a second cryptographic check capable of verifying that all or part of the second transaction request has not been altered:
validating the second cryptographic check to verify that all or part of the second transaction request has not been altered;
decreasing the balance of the obligations account associated with the first party based on the second obligation payment: and
decreasing the hold on the financial account associated with the first party based on the balance of the obligations account, wherein completing the second two-party transaction is prevented unless the second cryptographic check is successfully validated; and
locking a transaction record associated with the second two-party transaction until it least the hold on the financial account is successfully adjusted; wherein, if the hold on the financial account is not successfully adjusted, the transaction record is maintained in a locked state and completion of the second two-party transaction is withheld.”
The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity that is a fundamental economic practice or and a commercial or legal interaction in which there is a funds transfer transaction or payout to a third-party processor, whereby transaction details are exchanged between transacting parties or sources.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. processor, network - see App. specification, paras. 0054, 0061;0078-0079, 0082; see also Figs. 1A-B, 4-5).
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g. computer) for transmitting or and receiving data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components.
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. The innovation as claimed appears to be directed to the user’s objective of using the payouts to the respective parties to the transaction including the third-party payment processor rather than the integration of a practical application. 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. computer) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-19 for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the evaluation of the request to transfer funds from one source to another, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components (e.g. general-purpose computer) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components/elements of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9 and 20 and does not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 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 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019