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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 October 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues pages 23-25 that the claims are integrated into a practical application, specifically that the claims are similar to Example 37. The Examiner disagrees because providing an additional icon on an interface does not improve the functioning of the computer or another technology. Providing additional information on a display is not analogous to the non-binding Example 37 because the icons were dynamically arranged based on usage whereas the additional information of a pending transfer is not dynamically displayed or determined to be displayed based on any inputs or user usage. Additional information available on a GUI is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer and the nominal battery saving described in [0231] are achieved, according to the specification, by reducing the user’s cognitive burden and not by any technological means. Improvements in the functioning of the computer cannot be achieved through the mental use of a user and need to be present in the technology and claims. Providing additional selectable options on a user interface is more similar to a design choice than example 37 and are not dynamically adjusted based on user inputs and activity.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 October 2025 with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 29-31 of the Remarks that Lucas does not teach or disclose scenarios in which a user is able to choose to transfer funds to another user. Lucas clearly discloses in at least the abstract “System, method, and computer program product are provided for a user to send and receive P2P payments using a mobile device” which is a type of person to person transfer. Additionally, the Applicant argues Lucas does not pertain to an application or user interface that requires interaction with other users. The Examiner again cites at least the Abstract that discloses a system for sending and receiving P2P payments using a mobile device and Fig. 11 that sends payments via text.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 1-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input device”. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “displaying accounts for funds transfers” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk and funds transfers are forms of peer to peer transfers and fundamental economic principles), commercial or legal interactions (initiating and displaying transfers is an agreement or contract and business relations) and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (initiating transfers between people is a form of managing personal interactions between people)” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 1 recites concurrently displaying a portion of a first visual representation and a portion of a second visual representation, receiving selection of the first visual representation, displaying an option to initiate a transfer request and an indication of a pending transfer, receiving a first input, displaying representations of one or more users, and receiving a first input. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as one or more processors, a memory, a display generation component, and one or more input devices represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of displaying accounts for funds transfers.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of displaying accounts for funds transfers using computer technology (e.g. one or more processors and a memory. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-15, 18-31, and 32-48 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claim with additional elements such as additional buttons to cancel, view the history of the transfers, status of transfers are extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas US 2015/0134507 in view of Van Os US 2018/0336543.
As per claim 1: Lucas discloses a computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices (Fig 4), comprising: one or more processors (Fig 4 ‘410’); and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Fig 4 ‘420’), the one or more programs including instructions for: concurrently displaying, via the display generation component, a portion of a first visual representation corresponding to a first asset account, associated with a first user of the computer system, and a portion of a second visual representation, different from the first visual representation, corresponding to a second asset account, associated with the first user of the computer system that is different from the first asset account ([0099], Fig 8B ‘838’, Fig 9B); while concurrently displaying the portion of the first visual representation and the portion of the second visual representation, receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of the first visual representation corresponding to the first asset account (Fig 8B ‘840’, [0100], ‘830’); in response to receiving selection of the first visual representation corresponding to the first asset account, displaying, via the display generation component, a transfer request interface for the first asset account, wherein displaying the transfer request interface for the first asset account includes displaying: an option to initiate a transfer request using the first asset account (Fig 8B ‘840’, [0100], ‘830’) and; while displaying the transfer request interface for the first asset account, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first input (Fig 8B ‘840’, [0100], ‘830’); and in response to receiving the first input: in accordance with a determination that the first input corresponds to the option to initiate a transfer request, displaying, via the display generation component, representations of one or more users, (Fig 9B, Fig 8B ‘844’) wherein a representation corresponding to a respective user of the one or more users can be selected as a recipient of the transfer request using the first asset account (Fig 8B ‘846, [0103]).
Lucas fails to explicitly disclose but Van OS does disclose in accordance with a determination that a second user, different from the first user, has provided a request for transferring assets, an indication of a pending transfer request that was requested by the second user, wherein the indication of the pending transfer request is displayed concurrently with the option to initiate a transfer request ([0845]-[0891], Fig 26F-26L ‘2670B’, ‘2618’) and in accordance with a determination that the first input corresponds to the indication of the pending transfer request, initiating a process to transfer assets to the second user using the first asset account, wherein initiating the process to transfer assets to the second user includes displaying a message interface corresponding to a message thread between the firs user and the second user ([0845]-[0891], Fig 26F-26L, [0862]-[0863]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Van Os in Lucas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 are in the art of peer transfers and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine to improve the user interface of Lucas to integrate the status of a pending transfer and messaging features (see [0107], [0121], [0130]).As per claims 16 and 17:
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under the rationale of claim 1.As per claim 2: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the representations of one or more users, receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of a first representation corresponding to a first respective user of the one or more users (Fig 8C ‘868’, [0107], 9D); and in response to receiving selection of the first representation corresponding to the first respective user as the recipient of the transfer request using the first asset account, displaying, via the display generation component, a quantity user interface for selection of a quantity of an asset to be transferred based on the transfer request (Fig 8C ‘868’, [0107], 9D).
As per claim 3: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 2, wherein the quantity user interface includes an available balance of the first asset account (Fig 9D).
As per claim 4: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 2, the one or more programs further including instructions for: receiving, via the one or more input devices, user input selecting a quantity of the asset to be transferred as part of the transfer request ([0109]-[0110]); subsequent to receiving user input selecting the quantity of the asset, receiving, via the one or more input devices, input to proceed with a process for transmitting a request for transfer of the quantity of the asset (Fig 9D, 8D ‘878’); and in response to receiving the input to initiate the process for transmitting the request for transfer of the quantity of the asset, proceeding with the process for transmitting the request for transfer of the quantity of the asset ([0111], Fig 8D).
As per claim 5: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 4, wherein proceeding with the process for transmitting the request for transfer of the quantity of the asset includes displaying a draft message for a conversation between the first user of the computer system and the first respective user (Fig 9D-E, Fig 8D ‘876’).
As per claim 6: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the representations of one or more users, receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of a first representation corresponding to a first respective user of the one or more users (Fig 9B, Fig 8B ‘844’,’846, [0103]); and subsequent to receiving selection of the first respective user as the recipient of the transfer request, transmitting, to the first user, the transfer request requesting transfer of assets from the first respective user to the first asset account (Figs 8D-E, 9D, [0124]-[0126], [0128]).
As per claim 7: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 6, the one or more programs further including instructions for: subsequent to transmitting, to the first respective user, the transfer request requesting transfer of assets from the first respective user to the first asset account, receiving an update on a status of the transfer request (Fig 9F, [0118]); and displaying, via the display generation component, a transfer history that includes a plurality of transfers using the first asset account, including: in accordance with a determination that the update on the status of the transfer request indicates that the first respective user has declined the transfer request, displaying an indication that the transfer request has been declined by the first respective user (Fig 9F, [0118], [041]).
As per claim 8: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 7, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the indication that the transfer request has been declined, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more inputs that include selection of the indication that the transfer request has been declined (Fig 8D ‘874’, [0113]); in response to receiving the one or more inputs that include selection of the indication that the transfer request has been declined, displaying an option to re-request the transfer (Fig 8B ‘840’, [0100], ‘830’); receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of the option to re-request the transfer (Fig 8B ‘840’, [0100], ‘830’); and in response to receiving selection of the option to re-request the transfer, initiating a process to transmit a request to the first respective user for transfer of a quantity of an asset requesting transfer of assets from the first respective user to the first asset account ([0111], Fig 8D).
As per claim 9: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the representations of one or more users, receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of a first representation corresponding to a first respective user of the one or more users (Fig 9B, Fig 8B ‘844’,’846, [0103]); subsequent to receiving selection of the first respective user as the recipient of the transfer request, transmitting, to the first respective user, a transfer request requesting transfer of assets from the first respective user to the first asset account; and subsequent to transmitting, to the first respective user, the transfer request requesting transfer of assets from the first respective user to the first asset account, concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: an indication that the transfer request requesting transfer of assets from the first respective user to the first asset account is pending ([0118]-[0119]); and an option to initiate a second transfer request, different from the transfer request, using the first asset account (Fig 9G ‘return to transfer funds’, [0116]).
As per claim 10: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 9, the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the indication that the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account is pending, receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of the indication that the transfer request is pending (Fig 9G ‘return to transfer funds’, [0116], [0118]-[0119]); and in response to receiving selection of the indication that the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account is pending, displaying, via the display generation component, information about the first respective user including: information about the transfer request (Fig 9G ‘return to transfer funds’, [0116], [0118]-[0119]); and information about a plurality of transfers of assets with the first respective user, wherein information about the transfer request is displayed above information about the plurality of transfers of assets with the first respective user (Fig 9G ‘return to transfer funds’, [0116], [0118]-[0119]). As per claim 11: Lucas fails to explicitly disclose but Van Os does disclose the computer system of claim 10, the one or more programs further including instructions for: receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of the information about the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account ([0951] Fig 29S); and in response to receiving selection of the information about the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account, displaying, via the display generation component, a transactions details user interface for the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account, including: expiration information for the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account ([0951] Fig 29S); and a cancellation option that, when activated, initiates a process to cancel the transfer request requesting transfer of assts from the first respective user to the first asset account ([0951] Fig 29S, Fig 8U [0399]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Van Os in Lucas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 are in the art of peer transfers and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine to improve the user interface of Lucas to integrate the status of a pending transfer and the expiration/cancelation option (see [0107], [0121], [0130]).
As per claim 12: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: displaying, via the display generation component, a notification with expiration information for the transfer request (Fig 10A, [0130], [0133]); receiving, via the one or more input devices, selection of the notification with expiration information (Fig 10A, [0130], [0133]); and in response to receiving selection of the notification, displaying, via the display generation component, a transactions details user interface for the transfer request (Fig 10A, [0130], [0133]).
As per claim 13: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: after assets have been added to the first asset account: displaying, via the display generation component, a first notification that assets have been added to the first asset account ([0116], Figs 9G, 8D, [0118], [0125]).
As per claim 14: Lucas further discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: after assets have been added to the first asset account: displaying, via the display generation component, a second notification including an indication of an amount of assets of the first asset account ([0116], Figs 9G, 8D, [0118], [0125]).
As per claim 15: Lucas fails to explicitly disclose but Van Os does disclose the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to receiving selection of the first visual representation corresponding to the first asset account, displaying, via the display generation component and concurrently with the option to initiate a transfer request using the first asset account, the first visual representation and a transfer history of one or more transfers performed using the first asset account ([0845] Fig 26F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Van Os in Lucas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 are in the art of peer transfers and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine to improve the user interface of Lucas to integrate the account history (see [0041]).As per claims 46-48: Lucas fails to explicitly disclose but Van Os does disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein: the indication of the pending transfer request comprises:
a first region that is selectable to indicate a user request to initiate a process for
transfer of assets to the second user using the first asset account ([0845]-[0891], Fig 26F-26L ‘2670B’, ‘2618’); and
a second region different from the first region that is selectable to indicate a user
request to initiate a process for ceasing display of the indication of the pending transfer request without transferring assets to the second user using the first asset account (Fig. 8U, ¶¶ [0611], [0399], [0499], [0546] include a cancel button); and the one or more programs further include instructions for:
in response to receiving the first input: in accordance with a determination that the first input corresponds to the first region of the indication of the pending transfer request, initiating a process to transfer assets to the second user using the first asset account, wherein initiating the process to transfer assets to the second user includes displaying a messaging interface corresponding to a message thread between the first user and the second user ([0845]-[0891], Fig 26F-26L ‘2670B’, ‘2618’); and
in accordance with a determination that the first input corresponds to the second region of the indication of the pending transfer request, initiating a process for ceasing
display of the indication of the pending transfer request without transferring assets to the second user (Fig. 8U, ¶¶ [0611], [0399], [0499], [0546] include a cancel button). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Van Os in Lucas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 are in the art of peer transfers and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine to improve the user interface of Lucas to integrate the account history (see [0041]). Additionally, a cancel button in a UI is a widely use practice, especially in the payment field and has been used to cancel or confirm transfers, bill pay, P2P payments, and almost any electronic transfer so that a user does not accidentally complete a transaction that the user did not intend and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include a cancel button. As per claims 18-31 and 32-45: Claims 18-31 and 32-45 are rejected under the rationales of claims 2-15, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soccorsy US 11079919 Rackley III US 2008/0010192.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692