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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 11/14/2025, claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended and claims 21-40 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been found to be persuasive in part, however are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
Regarding the 112 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are found to be persuasive; the previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn, however new 112 rejections are found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21, 28, and 35, recites the limitation "receiving,….from the external payment facilitator device…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it should be changed to “an external payment facilitator device” following the previous amendments.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 21-40 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 21-40 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 21 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method performed by a user device, the method comprising:
generating a user interface (UI) of an application for providing a real-time payment (RTP) for a transaction between a customer financial institution account that is linked to the application and a merchant financial institution account of a merchant;
displaying, on a display of the user device via the UI of the application, a QR code to be read by the point-of-sale (POS) device of the merchant to provide transaction information including a transaction amount;
receiving, a customer authorization request from the external payment facilitator device to confirm the transaction information received from the merchant in response to the POS device reading the QR code displayed by the user device, wherein the customer authorization request includes a prompt requesting information to link the customer financial institution account to the application; and
providing, to the external payment facilitator device, a customer authorization response, wherein the customer authorization response includes the information requested in the prompt, wherein the external payment facilitator device is configured to provide the payment authorization to the sponsor financial institution in response to receiving the customer authorization response.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “user device, pos device, external payment facilitator device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “user device, pos device, external payment facilitator device”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 3 additional elements – “user device, pos device, external payment facilitator device”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do 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 of “user device, pos device, external payment facilitator device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “user device, pos device, external payment facilitator device” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38, and 40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2020/0118090 A1 to Bartrim (“Bartrim”), in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0081946 A1 to Opondo (“Opondo”), in view of Unites States Patent No. 10,467,615 B1 to Omojola (“Omojola”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0270168 A1 to Daya et al. (“Daya”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256524 A1 to Willis (“Willis”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0088674 A1 to Flurscheim et al. (“Flurscheim”)
In regards to claims 21, 28, and 35, Bartrim discloses the following limitations:
A method performed by a user device, the method comprising: generating a user interface (UI) of an application for providing a real-time payment (RTP) for a transaction between a customer financial institution account that is linked to the application and a merchant financial institution account of a merchant; (see at least Bartrim Figures 17-22, and ¶¶ 0189-0191, 0193-0194)
receiving, a customer authorization request (Bartrim discloses that during a transaction or at/near the POS for a transaction, the ability of the user to setup accounts to use for the transaction and provide authorization by the customer. See at least ¶¶ 0088 and 0112 “and/or mobile device 120 can provide a barcode (such as a QR code), which can be scanned using an optical scanner of point-of-sale terminal 110.” “consumer 129 can make the decision from which account or accounts to fund the transaction, and/or to authorize a loan or a credit transaction, while at or near the point-of-sale terminal 110 in the store of merchant 119… The options of consumer accounts 131 can include the option to open a new loan account, or to add to the balance of an existing loan account. In some embodiments, consumer 129 can setup a list (e.g., prioritized list) of consumer accounts 131 to use for transaction using mobile device 120”)
Bartrim discloses using the user device to capture the QR code via a camera, and providing via the user device to the POS a QR code (see at least ¶ 0088) however, does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
Displaying, on a display of the user device via the UI of the application, a QR code to be read by the point of sale (POS) device of the merchant to provide transaction information including a transaction amount.
an external payment facilitator device;
providing, to the external payment facilitator device, a customer authorization response, wherein the customer authorization response includes the information requested in the prompt, wherein the external payment facilitator device is configured to provide the payment authorization to the sponsor financial institution; in response to receiving the customer authorization response
The Examiner provides Flurscheim to teach the following limitations:
Displaying, on a display of the user device via the UI of the application, a QR code to be read by the point of sale (POS) device of the merchant to provide transaction information including a transaction amount. (see at least Flurscheim Figure 6b and 7, and ¶¶ 0094-0099)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Flurscheim in order to “help card issuers and merchants improve card security or enable new payment experiences through the use of QR codes” (¶ 0099) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Omojola to teach the following limitations:
providing, to the external payment facilitator device, a customer authorization response, wherein the customer authorization response includes the information requested in the prompt, wherein the external payment facilitator device is configured to provide the customer authorization to the service to initiate the transaction in response to receiving the customer authorization response (see at least Omojola Figure 9 and col. 22 line 51- col. 24 line 6., and Col. 31 line 50- Col. 32 line 58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Omojola since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Daya to teach the following limitations:
an external payment facilitator device; to initiate an RTP (Daya teaches an external payment facilitator device that allows the initiation of a RTP between a customer and a merchant. See at least Abstract, ¶¶ 0020 “techniques described herein can utilize the stored balance of the payor or a transfer from a linked bank account of the payor and can settle the payment using an ACH or other electronic funds transfer, check, cryptocurrency, peer-to-peer, real-time (e.g., payments using “Real-Time Payment” (RTP) network infrastructure, or other similar infrastructure, that provides consumers and businesses with the ability to send payments directly from their accounts at federally insured depository institutions 24/7, and to receive and access funds sent to them over the RTP network immediately, payments made over instant clearing and/or settlement rails, etc.), and/or the like.”)
The Examiner provides Willis to teach the following limitations:
provide a payment authorization to a sponsor financial institution, (Willis teaches a system and method of performing a RTP comprises a sponsor financial institution that receives a payment authorization that then prompts the sponsor to initiate the transaction between the first and second entities. See at least Figure 1A-1B, and ¶¶ 0045-0048)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Willis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 22, 29, and 36, Bartrim discloses the following limitations:
providing, to the (see at least Bartrim Figure 17-22)
The Examiner provides Daya to teach the following limitations:
an external payment facilitator device; (Daya teaches an external payment facilitator device that allows the initiation of a RTP between a customer and a merchant. See at least Abstract, ¶¶ 0020 “techniques described herein can utilize the stored balance of the payor or a transfer from a linked bank account of the payor and can settle the payment using an ACH or other electronic funds transfer, check, cryptocurrency, peer-to-peer, real-time (e.g., payments using “Real-Time Payment” (RTP) network infrastructure, or other similar infrastructure, that provides consumers and businesses with the ability to send payments directly from their accounts at federally insured depository institutions 24/7, and to receive and access funds sent to them over the RTP network immediately, payments made over instant clearing and/or settlement rails, etc.), and/or the like.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Daya since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 23, 30, and 37, Bartrim discloses the following limitations:
Wherein the information requested in the prompt comprises personal identifying information. (See at least Bartrim ¶ 0106 “authentication system 121 can verify the identity of consumer 129. For example, authentication system 121 can verify the identity of consumer 129 using a personal identification number (PIN), a password, one or more fingerprints, voice recognition, other biometrics (e.g., mobile phone bio-measurements), and/or other suitable authentication methods, to ensure that consumer 129 is authorized to associate mobile application 123 with one or more of consumer accounts 131 and/or make payments using mobile application 123”; and ¶ 0130)
In regards to claims 24, 31, and 38, Bartrim discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: displaying, via the UI of the application, a set of customer financial institution accounts, including the customer financial institution account, that are linked to the application; and receiving a selection of the customer financial institution account to be used to provide the RTP, wherein the providing the payment request comprises providing the payment request based on receiving the selection of the customer financial institution account. (see at least Bartrim Figures 17-22, and ¶¶ 0189-0191, 0193-0194)
In regards to claims 26, 33, and 39, Bartrim does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
displaying, via the UI of the application, a QR screen that includes a scan QR icon and a show QR icon; and receiving a selection of the scan QR icon, wherein the displaying the view of the camera of the user device comprises displaying the view of the camera of the user device based on receiving the selection of the scan QR icon.
The Examiner provides Opondo to teach the following limitations:
displaying, via the UI of the application, a QR screen that includes a scan QR icon and a show QR icon; and receiving a selection of the scan QR icon, wherein the displaying the view of the camera of the user device comprises displaying the view of the camera of the user device based on receiving the selection of the scan QR icon. (Opondo teaches a system and method of providing payment for a transaction including displaying on the user interface of the user device a view of the camera to scan a QR code including displaying guidelines for where to scan the code and a button/icon for initiating the QR scanning functionality. See at least Abstract, Figure 4, and ¶ 0072)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Opondo since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 27, 34, and 40, Bartrim does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
displaying, via the UI of the application, alignment indicators for aligning with the QR code.
The Examiner provides Opondo to teach the following limitations:
displaying, via the UI of the application, alignment indicators for aligning with the QR code. (Opondo teaches a system and method of providing payment for a transaction including displaying on the user interface of the user device a view of the camera to scan a QR code including displaying guidelines for where to scan the code and a button/icon for initiating the QR scanning functionality. See at least Abstract, Figure 4, and ¶ 0072)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Opondo since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 25, 32, and 39, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2020/0118090 A1 to Bartrim (“Bartrim”), in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0081946 A1 to Opondo (“Opondo”), in view of Unites States Patent No. 10,467,615 B1 to Omojola (“Omojola”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0270168 A1 to Daya et al. (“Daya”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256524 A1 to Willis (“Willis”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0088674 A1 to Flurscheim et al. (“Flurscheim”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 25, 32, and 39, Bartrim does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: displaying, via the UI of the application, a preferences screen that permits a customer to set a budget, and setup two-factor authentication.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide a preferences option in a mobile application, and that setting up a budget and 2FA are both well known to be used in financial applications. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of Bartrim the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627