DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 08/28/2025. Currently, claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 3, 11 and 18 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9 and 17 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as set forth in the previous action.
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, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for completing a transaction using matching tokenized accounts.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“determining, from a plurality of financial accounts stored in a database at the remote computing system and wherein each financial account of the plurality of financial accounts is associated with a respective pseudo-anonymous system user, a particular optimal financial account to fulfill the financial transaction, wherein the particular optimal financial account is determined based at least on one or more transaction incentives applicable to the financial transaction and available for use via the particular optimal financial account; (selecting an optimal financial account for the transaction)
determining a unique account identifier corresponding to the particular optimal financial account, wherein the unique account identifier is stored in the database in association with the particular optimal financial account; (retrieving unique account identifier associated with the financial account)
determining, via processing the unique account identifier and modified transaction data at an authorization gateway, that the particular optimal financial account is authorized to fulfill the financial transaction; and (processing transaction using unique identifier)
in response to determining that the particular optimal financial account is authorized to fulfill the financial transaction, transmitting a transaction approval notice to the point-of-sale system; and (transmitting transaction approval)
“decrypting (1) an encrypted asset account identifier stored in association with the application user identifier…and (2) an encrypted asset account identifier stored in association with the particular optimal financial account…” (matching asset account identifier to information associated with asset account and optimal financial account).
The claim limitations describe the steps of 1) selecting an optimal financial account for a transaction, 2) retrieving a unique identifier associated with the optimal transaction, 3) processing the transaction, 4) matching asset account identifier to information associated with asset account and optimal financial account.
The above limitations describe the process of completing a transaction using matching tokened accounts. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (covers commercial interactions or managing interactions between people)" enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “covers commercial interactions or managing interactions between people”, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the cited claim recites additional elements in the form of computing devices (processor, remote computing system, mobile computing device, point-of-sale system, database, authorization gateway) for implementing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing devices recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites the steps of “receiving transaction data”, “initiating a charge to a legitimate account number…” and “transmitting a request to the asset account…” These steps amount to insignificant pre- and post-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The steps of “receiving transaction data”, “initiating a charge to a legitimate account number…” and “transmitting a request to the asset account…” while amounting to insignificant pre- and post-solution activities, amounts to “transmitting/receiving information over a network” that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
In addition, the computing devices (processor, remote computing device, mobile computer device, point-of-sale system, database, authorization gateway) recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, 19 and 20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches or suggests the combination:
“decrypting (1) an encrypted asset account identifier stored in association with the application user identifier to determine account and routing information corresponding to an asset account belonging to the application user, and (2) an encrypted asset account identifier stored in association with the particular optimal financial account to determine account and routing information corresponding to an asset account belonging to a particular pseudo-anonymous system user associated with the particular optimal financial account; and
transmitting a request to the asset account belonging to the application user, wherein the request comprises instructions for initiating a transfer of a particular value amount owed to be transferred from the asset account belonging to the application user to the asset account belonging to the particular pseudo-anonymous system user, and wherein the particular value amount owed constitutes reimbursement for the application user’s use of the particular optimal financial account”,
as recited in claims 1, 9 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim limitations describe performing and completing a transaction between anonymous parties (customer and merchant) through matching tokenized accounts. A remote computing system (third party) receives transaction data from a user’s mobile computing device engaging in a financial transaction. The remote computing system determines the optimal tokenized financial account from a plurality of tokenized financial accounts based on one or more criteria. A unique account identifier associated with the optimal financial account is used to process and complete the transaction, including payment transfer. In addition, the remote computing system decrypts an encrypted asset account identifier associated with an application user and pseudo-anonymous user and transmits a request to the asset account belonging to the application user.
Similar to USR v. Apple, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of processing and completing a transaction using a conventional authentication/tokenization means. In USR v. Apple, the court held that “the claims are directed to a method for enabling a transaction between a user and a merchant, where the merchant is given a time-varying code instead of the user's secure (credit card) information. The time-varying code is used to access a database that indicates any restrictions on the user's transactions with the merchant and also allows a third party or credit card company to approve or deny the transaction based on the secure information without the provider gaining access to the secure information. In our view, the claims "simply recite conventional actions in a generic way" (e.g., receiving a transaction request, verifying the identity of a customer and merchant, allowing a transaction) and "do not purport to improve any underlying technology." Solutran, 931 F.3d at 1168. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one.”
Accordingly, the present claims are directed to an abstract idea, and merely uses computers in a conventional way, rather than a technological improvement to computer functionality itself.
The additional elements of “decrypting (1) an encrypted asset account identifier stored in association with the application user identifier to determine account and routing information…and (2) an encrypted asset account identifier stored in association with the particular optimal financial account to determine account and routing information corresponding to an asset account…” and “transmitting a request to the asset account belonging to the application user…” describe matching the asset account identifier to information associated with account and routing information corresponding to an asset account and optimal financial account and transmitting a request to the asset account. The additional elements describe well-known and conventional enhanced methods of encryption and disbursements that enable optimized security to perform and complete a transaction. See Applicant’s filed specification page 2, lines 4-21. Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627