DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jan. 29, 2026, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when emailing the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Sept. 15, 2026, was filed after the first Office action on the merits but before final action and contained the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). Therefore, the IDS is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–20 are pending and examined with Claims 1, 7, and 16 in independent form.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Mar. 8, 2023, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues that the pending amended Claims do not recite an abstract idea because the amended claims in not identical to any of the enumerated examples of a fundamental economic practice, citing MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Applicant’s Reply at 12–14.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified judicial exception grouping is not limited to the precise fact patterns recited in the Remarks. Independent Claim 1 recites receiving a payment request, identifying a recipient account, temporarily storing payment value in an escrow account, and releasing funds to the recipient account, which is an electronic implementation of an intermediated settlement arrangement. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 219–21 (2014).
Applicant argues at Step 2A, Prong Two that any alleged abstract idea is integrated into not a practical application by proving a technical solution to a technical problem. The alleged technical problem is “a payer is unable to pay other credit card holders or non-merchants with his or her credit card. … a merchant is unable to pay other
merchants or customers except in the instance of refunding a specific transaction [and] use of credit card transaction networks are often associated with higher fees relative to other payment rails,” citing Spec. ¶ 2. Applicant’s Reply at 15. The pending claims solve this technical problem. Applicant’s Reply at 14–17.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted “technical” problem is actually a business/payment access problem, i.e., expanding who may be paid with a credit account and avoiding certain payment rails or associated fees. This is not an improvement to a computer, network protocol, or payment network itself. The claims recite results-orientated transaction functions, e.g., receiving a request, obtaining an identifier, sending notice, etc., using generic computing devices, without a claimed technical mechanism that improves computer performance or a technical field. Applicant’s cited portions of the Specification merely describe the business workflow but does not identify a new computer architecture, protocol, data processing technique, or other technical mechanism. The recited escrow account, issuer initiation, two transfers, and interbank network other than a credit card network further narrow the commercial transaction scenario because the define the source and destination of funds, the intermediary account, the entity initiating the transfer, and the selected payment rail but do not recite an improvement to how a computer or payment network operates. An escrow account and interbank transfer are financial transaction arrangements and thier recitation without technical implementation details beyond generic computing devise and components does not itself alter the abstract commercial practice into a practical application. The Specification teaches the issuer may use conventional ACH, wire transfer, RTGS, or batch settlement methods. Spec. ¶ 81.
Applicant argues at Step 2B that even if individual computer components are conventional, the claimed combination is a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that enables a credit account to send and receive funds using an issuer-operated escrow account and as interbank network other than a credit card network. Applicant’s Rely at 18–20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument labels the combination “non-conventional” but does not provide a factual basis that the claimed arrangement was not well understood routine and conventional (“WRC”) as of the filing date. This argument is conclusory, and attorney argument is not evidence. 37 CFR 1.111(b); MPEP § 2145(I). Further, Applicant does not identify a claimed technological improvement apart from the commercial payment arrangement. Accordingly, the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or significantly more. MPEP § 2106.05(I). The Specification describes use of conventional financial transfer rails, e.g. ACH, wire transfer, RTGS, and bath net settlement (Spec. ¶ 81), and conventional computing components to conduct the claimed transfers, which is Berkheimer evidence.1
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant argues that Claims 1–20 are patentable over the prior art of record “for at least the reasons discussed and agreed to in the interview on January 26th.” Applicant’s Reply at 21. Applicant’s contention that the patentability of Claims 1–20 over Hecht, Coyle, and Olson was agreed to during the January 26, 2026, interview is not supported by the record. The Interview Summary filed Jan. 28, 2026, states “No agreement was reached regarding the 103 issue.”
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 (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–20 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–6 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 7–15 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 16–20 recite a “non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination. Normal font is used for limitations that recite the judicial exception. Bold font is used to indicate additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two (practical application) and Step 2B (significantly more). Italics font is used where necessary to identify intended use limitations2 and underline font is used, as needed, in further describing the judicial exception. Each limitation is identified by a letter designator for use as a shorthand notation when analyzing/referencing each limitation. Rep. Claim 1 recites:
[A] 1. A system, comprising: a first computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the first computing device to at least:
[B] receive, from a first client device, a request to send a specified amount of funds from a first specified credit account to a recipient;
[C] request, from a second computing device, a transaction identifier for the request to send the specified amount of funds to the recipient;
[D] send a first notification to a second client device, wherein the first notification comprises the transaction identifier and the second client device is associated with the recipient;
[E] receive, from the second computing device, a second notification that the recipient has accepted the specified amount of funds, wherein the second notification identifies a second specified credit account associated with the recipient;
[F] perform a first funds transfer of the specified amount of funds from the first specified credit account to an escrow account via an interbank payment network other than a credit card network, wherein the escrow account is a financial account operated by a credit card issuer for the temporary storage of funds transferred between credit card accounts and other financial accounts, and wherein the first funds transfer is initiated by the credit card issuer; and
[G] perform a second funds transfer of the specified amount of funds from the escrow account to the second specified credit account.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea in the normal font elements of Limitations B–F, which together describes receiving a request to send funds from a first credit account to a recipient [B]; obtaining and communicating transaction information [C] [D]; receiving recipient acceptance and recipient account information [E]; temporarily transferring funds into an escrow account [F], and transferring funds from the escrow account to the recipient account [G], which describe recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing humana activity grouping because it recites a commercial interaction and a fundamental economic practice, i.e., arranging and settling a transfer of funds between financial accounts through a temporary escrow holding account. This characterization is further supported by Alice, which treated intermediated settlement as a fundamental economic practice and by the Federal Circuit cases holding claims directed to financial transaction arrangements and payment processing abstract where the advance lies in commercial arrangement rather than computing technology. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 219–21 (2014); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements identified in Rep. Claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A system, comprising: a first computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions; a first client device; a second computing device; a second client device; and an interbank payment network other than a credit card network.
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
A claim improves technology only when it recites a specific improvement to the way a computer itself operates, not merely the application of an existing process using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, Rep Claim 1 recites a financial arrangement for initiating, holding, and settling funds transfers among credit accounts using an intermediated escrow account. The claims do not recite an improvement in the operation of a computer, client device, payment network, or payment message protocol. The claims merely use the recited additional elements as tolls to perform the abstract financial operations.
The specification confirms this characterization by identifying the asserted benefits as allowing credit accounts to send and receive funds through payment rails other than conventional credit card networks, including access to additional recipients and potentially lower fees. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 10, 11. These are benefits of the commercial payment arrangement and not identified improvements to the computer. The Specification describes the issuer, peer, and integrator computing environments as one or more computing devices with processors, memories, and network interfaces and describes the client devices as general processor-based devices executing instructions. Spec. ¶¶ 37–40, 66, 67.
To the extent Applicant characterizes issuer operated escrow and interbank transfers as technical solutions, Rep. Claim 1 does not recite how the asserted solution improves a computer. Rather, Rep. Claim 1 specifies the account relationships, the initiating entity, and the payment rail for the transaction arrangement, but does not recite a particular data structure, message format, network protocol, computer architecture, or technical mechanism that produces an improvement. The Specification instead describes known alternate payment and settlement choices, including ACD, wire transfer, RTGS, and batch settlement. Spec. ¶ 81.
The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea with a particular machine.
Although Rep. Claim 1 recites specific hardware components (e.g., computing devices, client devices, processors, memories, networks), these components are recited at a high functional level and perform only their generic/ordinary functions of receiving, transmitting, storing, and processing data. Spec. ¶¶ 37–40, 66, 67. A machine is “particular” only when it imposes a meaningful limit on the claims scope. MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, any general-purpose computing device, client, server, and conventional interbank payment infrastructure would satisfy the claim’s hardware requirements, which confirms that the hardware components are generic rather than “particular.” MPEP § 2106.05(b). The specification describes the computing environment broadly as one or more computing devices having processors, memories, and network interfaces, which may be arranged in server banks, distributed locations, hosted resources, grid resources, or other distribution arrangements. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 40. Therefore, Rep. Claim 1 does not apply the exception with a particular machine.
The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f) and generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Regarding the additional elements, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them with specificity beyond exemplary language and instead describes them as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. The specification’s own broad, exemplary characterization confirms that these components are not described in a manner that would impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The specification failure to describe these components in any detail beyond exemplary language is itself an admission that the components are so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 37–40, 66, 67.
The generic processor and associated devices perform conventional functions of receiving a request, requesting a transaction identifier (date), communicating notifications, receiving account information, and initiating transfers. These functions use the computer as a tool to perform the claimed abstract financial management process.
Limitation A describes the first computing device’s processor, memory, and machine-readable instructions to perform the functions of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and memory device, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–G describe the first computing device’s processor, memory, and machine-readable instructions, performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself on a general-purpose computer. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception using a computer, merely adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception without imposing any meaningful technical limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Alternatively, the claim generically recites an effect of the abstract idea without specifying how the computer achieves that effect in any technically meaningful way. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent Claims 7 and 16 are not substantially different than Rep. Claim 1, recite the same abstract idea as Rep. Claim 1, and contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed for Rep. Claim 1. Therefore, Independent Claims 7 and 16 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because, considered as a whole and the additional elements individually and in combination, it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements (i.e., A system, comprising: a first computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions; a first client device; a second computing device; a second client device; and an interbank payment network other than a credit card network.), are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure3. The claims recites generic computing and communication components performing their ordinary functions of receiving, processing, storing, and transmitting transaction information and initiating a funds transfer. Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components operate in no particular order and are implemented using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. Spec. ¶ 169 (steps/functions may be performed in any order or concurrently); ¶¶ 37–40, 66, 67 (describing each component using exemplary language as generic or known computing equipment and networks).
The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited:
The combination of the additional elements is likewise WRC. A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(2). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification. Rep. Claim 1 combines generic devices and known network communications to carry out the commercial financial operations. There is no indication that the combination of these elements operates in an unconventional manner or produces a result that is other than what would be expected from the generic application of these individual components.
Unlike BASCOM, where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location (an ISP server) rather than on individual end-user devices, Rep. Claim 1 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way that changes how a computer or network operates. The claims recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular arrangement or order that constitutes the alleged improvement. At the high level of generality recited, the combination is WRC. Rep. Claim 1 recites only abstract steps without incorporating any specific technical details for how these elements are performed. A non-conventional arrangement that is described but not claimed cannot supply the inventive concept at Step 2B. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, the claim cannot be an improvement to the computer or another technology. MPEP § 2106.05(f). No inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra.
Independent Claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim whose machine-readable instructions cause a system to perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 7 is a method claim reciting steps that perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 7 and 16 add no additional elements beyond those of Rep. Claim 1 that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Independent Claims 7 and 16 also do not recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination with the elements of the independent claims. Each dependent claim incorporates all the limitations of its parent Independent Claim and therefore recites the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B, for the following reasons:
Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 17 add debiting the specified amount from the first specified credit account. Debiting as account is part of the same abstract financial processing and does not improve computer or network technology. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 18 (Group 1) and Claims 4, 10, and 19 (Group 2) add initiating a payment through a known RTGS system (Group 1) and known batch processed net settlement network (Group 2), respectively. These limitations identify alternate payment settlement rails but do not recite an improvement it the operation of RTGS, ACH, or other settlement rail; they merely use them to carry out the claimed abstract process. The Specification describes RTGS and batch processed net settlement network as known transfer types. Sec. ¶ 81.
Dependent Claims 5, 13, and 20 add creating a uniform resource indicator (URI) that includes a transaction identifier and including the URI in the first notification without specifying a technical mechanical for how this is done, preempting every way of doing it and encompassing mental processes by hand under BRI. The Specification does not describe how the URI is generated except that it is.
Dependent Claims 6 and 15 add sending a message indicating recipient acceptance, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). What a message communicates to a human user is not relevant to § 101 analysis under the printed matter doctrine. Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Claim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.").
Dependent Claim 11 adds that the second transfer is a payment from the escrow account to the second specified credit account which restates the account transfer relationship of Independent Claim 7 and merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Dependent Claim 12 adds contact information and sending a notification to the destination specified in the contact information, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Dependent Claim 14 adds further limits the abstract idea of Independent Claim 7 to include a transaction identifier in the second notification. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Combined Consideration. Considered individually and in any combination, the dependent claims' limitations either further limit the abstract financial process of Independent Claims or invoke conventional payment and account processing functions. None of these limitations recites a particular machine, a non-conventional ordered arrangement of components in the sense of BASCOM, or any specific technical mechanism for performing the recited steps. Accordingly, none of Dependent Claims 2–6, 8–15, and 16–20 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and none amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Conclusion
Claims 1–20 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,068,866) [“Hecht”] in view of Coyle et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0019354) [“Coyle”], in view of Olson et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0379562) [“Olson”], and further in view of Bishop et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0164330) [“Bishop”]
Regarding Claim 1, Hecht discloses:
A system, comprising: a first computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and
(Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.6 l.31 through c.7 l.24 and Fig 1 read on a first computing device with a processor, memory and executable instructions.)
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the first computing device to at least:
(id. Hecht, directly above.)
receive, from a first client device, a request to send a specified amount of funds from a first specified credit account to a recipient;
(Hecht c.17 l.3-61, c.25 l.43-59 and Figs 10,13 read on a first client device and a request to send funds from a specified account to a recipient.)
request, from a second computing device, a transaction identifier for the request to send the specified amount of funds to the recipient;
(Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.13 l.49-64, c.25 l.19-42, c.27 l.1-55 and Figs 1,12,20 read on a second computing device and communications subject to a payment identifier and transaction identifier.)
send a first notification to a second client device, wherein the first notification comprises the transaction identifier and the second client device is associated with the recipient;
(Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.17 l.3-61, c.25 l.19-59 and Figs 1,10,12,13 read on communications and notification to a device associated with a recipient inclusive of a payment/transaction identifier.)
receive, from the second computing device, a second notification that the recipient has accepted the specified amount of funds, wherein the second notification identifies a second specified credit account associated with the recipient;
(Hecht c.23 l.41-67, c.25 l.60 through c.26.l.11 and Figs 11,14 read on communications, a monetary account and funds accepted by a recipient as a second account.)
perform a first funds transfer of the specified amount of funds from the first specified credit account to an [ ] account […],
(Hecht c.25 l.43-59, c.28 l.39 through c.29 l.2 and Figs 13,24 read a funds transfer to a monetary account subject to a hard post to a recipient account via ACH. ACH is not a credit card network)
[…]
perform a second funds transfer of the specified amount of funds [hard post] from the [ ] account to the second specified credit account.
(Hecht c.25 l.43-59, c.28 l.39 through c.29 l.2 and Figs 13,24 read a funds transfer to a monetary account subject to a hard post to a recipient account via ACH. ACH is not a credit card network)
Hecht does not teach: escrow account. Coyle, however, teaches:
escrow account
(Coyle ¶¶ [0030], [0034] and Fig 1 read on financial transfers to a transaction account as an escrow account.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the funds transfers, transactions and communications of Hecht, the escrow account aspects of Coyle, 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. Both relate to funds transfers, communications and transactions, with the motivation being to enhance management of financial service operations (see Coyle ¶¶ [0006], [0007])
Hecht in view of Coyle does not teach: via an interbank payment network other than a credit card network; Olson, however, teaches:
via an interbank payment network other than a credit card network;
(Olson ¶¶ [0020], [0021], [0035], [0039], [0045] and Fig 1 read on an intermediary as an interbank payment network with open loop and closed loop rails.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the funds transfers, transactions and communications of Hecht in view of Coyle, the bank and payment rails aspects of Olson, 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. Both relate to funds transfers, communications and transactions, with the motivation being to enhance management and flexibility of financial service operations (see Olson ¶¶ [0003], [0012])
Hecht in view of Coyle and Olson does not teach, but Bishop teaches:
wherein the escrow account is a financial account operated by a credit card issuer for the temporary storage of funds
(See at least ¶ 61, “the purchaser's financial institution 210 may comprise the transaction mechanism 202.” ¶ 64, “the transaction mechanism 202 is provided by the purchaser's financial institution 210, such as the card issuer of a purchaser's card.” ¶ 76, “transaction
mechanism can be established and maintained by any suitable third party, such as a card issuer.” ¶ 65, “The transaction mechanism 202 then executes the transaction by debiting the purchaser's financial account and crediting a suitable escrow account maintained by the transaction mechanism 202. The funds debited from the purchaser's financial account preferably remain in the escrow account for some predefined period of time.” See also, ¶ 85. Thus, a card issuer provided or card issuer-maintained transaction mechanism that maintains the escrow account for the temporary storage of funds.
transferred between credit card accounts and other financial accounts, and
(See at least ¶ 55, “a "financial account" or "account" can include a card account, a demand deposit account, a credit line, a money market account, a digital cash account, and/or any other financial account. Thus, a person-to-person transfer of funds can include card to card transfers of monetary value, card to demand deposit account (DDA) funds transfers, DDA to card transfers, card to credit line transfers, credit line to card transfers, and/or the like.” ¶ 56, “a "transaction card" or "card" … such as, for example, a charge
card, credit card, debit card, prepaid card, telephone card, smart card, magnetic stripe card, bar code card, authorization/access code, personal identification number (PIN), Internet code, other identification code, and/or the like.”
wherein the first funds transfer is initiated by the credit card issuer; and
(See at least ¶ 64, “the transaction mechanism 202 is provided by the purchaser's financial institution 210, such as the card issuer of a purchaser's card.” ¶ 65, “If the purchaser 204 has sufficient funds available in the financial account, and suitable risk management and authentication processes do not result in a negative determination, the transaction is deemed acceptable. The transaction mechanism 202 then executes the transaction by debiting the purchaser's financial account and crediting a suitable escrow account maintained by the transaction mechanism 202.” ¶ 85, “Once a transaction is deemed to be acceptable, the transaction mechanism suitably completes the transaction by debiting the purchaser's financial account, as represented by step 616. Preferably, the transaction mechanism then transfers the funds to a suitable escrow account and holds the funds in the escrow account until a suitable escrow release event has transpired, as represented by step 618.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hecht as modified by Coyle and Olson, to provide an escrow account operated by a credit card issuer for the temporary storage of funds transferred between credit card accounts and other financial accounts, and wherein the first funds transfer is initiated by the credit card issuer, in the same field of invention, with the motivation that when “the transaction mechanism 202 is provided by the purchaser's financial institution 210, such as the card issuer of a purchaser's card” the card issuer can “perform suitable risk management functions, such as suitable credit risk and/or fraud risk analyses for example. The ability of the transaction mechanism 202 … to perform credit risk and fraud risk analyses is particularly advantageous, since performance of these services by a third party not only delays the transaction process but presents an additional security risk when transmitting and processing confidential or transaction-sensitive information to and from the third party. Moreover, when the transaction mechanism 202 is provided by the purchaser's financial institution 210, such as a card issuer, information such as historical transactional records, account records, and/or the like easily can be reviewed to determine whether a credit or fraud risk exists.” Bishop, ¶ 64.
Regarding Claim 2, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The system of claim 1 and the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the first computing device to at least
Hecht further discloses:
debit the specified amount of funds from the first specified credit account.
(Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.6 l.31 through c.7 l.24, c.25 l.43-59, c.28 l.39 through c.29 l.2 and Figs 1,13,24 read a first computing device and funds transfer to a monetary account subject to a hard post to a recipient account.)
Regarding Claim 3, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The system of claim 1 and the machine-readable instructions that cause the first computing device to initiate the second funds transfer to the second specified credit account for the specified amount of funds further cause the first computing device to
Hecht further discloses:
initiate a payment through a real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system.
(Hecht c.7 l.25 through c.8 l.2, c.25 l.43-59 and Figs 1,13 read on funds transfer through an Automatic Clearing House (“ACH”) subject to real time.)
Regarding Claim 4, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The system of claim 1 and the machine-readable instructions that cause the first computing device to initiate the second funds transfer to the second specified credit account for the specified amount of funds further cause the first computing device to
Hecht further discloses:
initiate a payment through a batch processed, net settlement network.
(Hecht c.7 l.25 through c.8 l.22, c.25 l.43-59 and Figs 1,13 read on funds transfer through an ACH subject to real time and batch-oriented transfers.)
Regarding Claim 5, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The system of claim 1 and the machine-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to at least:
Hecht further discloses:
create a uniform resource indicator (URI) that includes the transaction identifier, and
(Hecht c.7 l.25 through c.8 l.2, c.25 l.43-59 and Figs 1,13 read on funds transfer through an ACH subject to identifications of financial institutions, parties and resources.)
include the URI in the first notification.
(see Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.17 l.3-61, c.25 l.19-59 and Figs 1,10,12,13 identified in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The system of claim 1 and the machine-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to at least
Hecht further discloses:
send a message to the first client device, the message indicating that the recipient has accepted the specified amount of funds.
(Hecht c.25 l.19-59, c.28 l.39 through c.29 l.2 and Figs 12,13,24 read a funds transfer to a monetary account and acceptance of status, subject to a hard post to a recipient account.)
Regarding Claim 7, Hecht discloses:
A method, comprising:
(Hecht, Claim 1)
The remaining limitations of Claim 7 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 8, 9, and 10, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The method of claim 7,
The remaining limitations of Claims 8, 9, and 10 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 2, 3, and 4, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship for the same rationale presented in Claims 2, 3, and 4, respectively, supra.
Regarding Claim 11, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The method of claim 7 and initiating the second funds transfer to the second specified credit account for the specified amount of funds
Hecht does not disclose but Coyle discloses:
further comprises initiating a payment from the escrow account to the second specified credit account for the specified amount of funds.
:(see Coyle ¶¶ [0030], [0034] and Fig 1 referenced above in Claim 1, as to escrow account.) to the second specified credit account for the specified amount of funds. (Hecht c.25 l.43-59, c.28 l.39 through c.29 l.2 and Figs 13,24 read a funds transfer to a monetary account subject to both a guarantee of funds and hard post to a recipient account. The Examiner notes that a guarantee of funds identifies relationship to an escrow account.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The method of claim 7, the request to send the specified amount of funds from the first specified credit account to the recipient, and sending the first notification to the second client device
Hecht further discloses
further comprises contact information for the recipient; and … further comprises sending the first notification to a destination specified in the contact information.
(Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.17 l.3-61, c.25 l.19-59 and Figs 1,10,12,13 read on communications and notification to a device associated with a recipient inclusive of a payment/transaction identifier.)
Regarding Claim 13, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The method of claim 7
The remaining limitations of Claim 13 is not substantively different than that presented in Claim 5 and is therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship for the same rationale presented in Claim 5, supra.
Regarding Claim 14, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The method of claim 7 and the second notification
Hecht further discloses
further comprises the transaction identifier.
(see Hecht c.5 l.8-44, c.13 l.49-64, c.25 l.19-42, c.27 l.1-55 and Figs 1,12,20 referenced above in Claim 1, as to a transaction identifier.)
Regarding Claim 15, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The method of claim 7
The remaining limitations of Claim 15 is not substantively different than that presented in Claim 6 and is therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship for the same rationale presented in Claim 6, supra.
Regarding Claim 16, Hecht disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a first computing device, cause the first computing device to at least:
(Hecht, Col. 5:50–52)
The remaining limitations of Claim 16 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 16.
Regarding Claims 17, 18, 19, and 20, Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship disclose:
The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 16
The remaining limitations of Claims 17, 18, 19, and 20 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Hecht, Coyle Olson, and Biship for the same rationale presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, supra.
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 JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
2 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
Prosecution Insights