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 .
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 02/02/2026 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 02 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 are pending in this instant application per the RCE remarks and claim amendments filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, and 20-22 have been amended. Claims 7 & 19 have been shown as cancelled. Claims 1, 8, 13 and 20 are independent claims reciting method, operation method, messaging server and server claims. Claims 2-6/12, 9-11, 14-18 and 21-22 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action (OA) is a non-final rejection based on RCE claim amendments and remarks filed by the Applicant on 02FEBRUARY 2026 for its original application of 13 MARCH 2023 that is titled: “Method and Apparatus for Remittance Service”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-6, 8-18 & 20-22 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in RCE on 02/02/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 8, 13 and 20 are independent method, operation method, messaging server and server (apparatus) claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: providing a remittance service by providing a messaging service via a chatroom of the messaging service; receiving, from a first user account subscribing to the messaging service, a remittance request that designates a profile of a second user account participating in the chatroom as a remittee; determining a type of the chatroom through which the remittance request is received or a profile type of the second user account; determining whether the first user account is an account of a ward [[]] linked to a family account by accessing a database storing family account information and [[]] based on at least one of the type of the chatroom or the profile type [[]] of the second user account, wherein the family account is configured by an administrator account having a verified administrator qualification determined based on authentication information of the administrator account; when the first user account is the account of the ward linked to [[]] the family account, determining whether the remittance request is allowed to the first user account by: obtaining a remittance condition, which is applied to the first user account and configured according to the type of the chatroom, wherein the remittance condition is mapped to a determined type of the chatroom or the profile type of the second user account, and includes at least one of a permission to remit or a remittance limit amount corresponding to the determined type of the chatroom or the profile type of the second user account; determining whether the remittance request satisfies the remittance condition applied to the first user account [[]] linked to the family account in the type of the chatroom; and determining that the remittance request is allowed when the remittance request satisfies the remittance condition set for the first user account [[]] linked to the family account in the type of the chatroom; transmitting the remittance request based on determining that the remittance is allowed; and transmitting, to a terminal of the second user account, a remittance notification message based on the remittance transaction information received. In other words, the claim describes a procedure for providing a remittance service and a client using the remittance service (see para [0001] or Field, in the Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk based on recitations of at least ‘remittance/s and many account/s’), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations based on recitations of at least ‘whether the first user account is under a family account when the first user account is an account of a ward’), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions based on at least recitations of ‘a remittance condition set’), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: a messaging server, a processor of the messaging server, a remittance server that is separate from the messaging server, and a terminal; transmitting, to a terminal of the second user account, a remittance notification message based on the remittance transaction information received from the remittance server; a communication module of the messaging server; and receiving, from the remittance server, remittance transaction information corresponding to the remittance request including the second user account as the remittee, wherein the remittance transaction information is generated by the remittance server by identifying a remitter corresponding to the first user account and the remittee corresponding to the second user account, and processing a remittance transaction between an account of the remitter and an account of the remittee provided by the remittance server. The servers, module/s and terminal/s in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The absence of a user input is interpreted as executing an instruction of transmitting a remittance by a computer. This is using the computer as a tool, not an improvement to the technology or the computer itself. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above, including RCE claim amendments of 02/02/2026, were considered to perform extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these servers and terminal/s (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner(as it is here). Also, per Summary paras (unnumbered) of the Applicant’s own Specification describe a “generic processor” as follows, and these paras don’t describe a “new technology solution”, at least as described in said paras ---
[{“According to another aspect, there is provided a messaging server providing a remittance service by interoperating with a remittance server including: at least one processor configured to receive, from a terminal of a first user account subscribing to a messaging service, a remittance request to a second user account subscribing to the messaging service, determine whether the first user account is under a family account when the first user account is an account of a ward; determine whether remittance is allowed to the first user account, based on a remittance condition set for the first user account under the family account; and transmitting the remittance request to the remittance server when remittance is allowed. …………… When determining whether the first user account is under the family account, the processor may determine whether the first user account is under the family account, based on a type of chatroom through which the remittance request is received. ……………
When determining whether the first user account is under the family account, the processor may determine whether the first user account is under the family account, based on a profile type of the second user account designated as a remittee of the remittance request. …………… The processor may receive, from the remittance server, remittance transaction information corresponding to the remittance request generated based on a remittance limit set for the first
user account by the family account. ……………
The remittance condition may be set for a member account of the family account by an administrator account of the family account. ……………
When determining whether remittance is allowed, the processor may determine whether remittance is allowed through a chatroom through which the remittance request is received, based on the remittance condition on whether remittance is allowed, and determine whether a remittance amount included by the remittance request is allowed to be remitted, based on the remittance condition on a remittance limit. ……………
The processor may receive, from the remittance server, remittance transaction information including the second user account as a remittee and transmit a remittance notification message to the second user account, based on the remittance transaction information. …………… According to an aspect, there is provided a server providing a remittance service including: at least one processor configured to generate a family account including at least one of an administrator account and at least one member account in response to a request to generate the family account, receive, from a terminal of the administrator account, a request to set a remittance condition for the at least one member account, and process a remittance request of the at least one member account, based on the remittance condition set for the at least one member account.”}] ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent operation method Claim 8, independent messaging server Claim 13 and independent server Claim 20, which perform the steps similar to those of independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-7, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., applying ‘updates’ ---status of surroundings; probability of position; a results ‘merger’; & degree of divergence calculation/determiner, etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent operation method Claims 9-12, dependent messaging server Claims 14-19 and dependent server new Claims 21-22 also further narrow their independent Claims 8, 13 and 20 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 02 FEBRUARY 2026 with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not place the claims in condition for allowance. The latest claim amendments of 02/02/2026 don’t overcome the 101 rejection. Thus, the rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22, as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks.
In response to Applicant’s RCE arguments of 02/02/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 citing similarity with Example 35, Claims 2 and 3; Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the instant application’s claims don’t recite “the combination of steps that are similar to that of Claim 2 or Claim 3 of Example 35”; wherein “the combination” solves a well-known problem that sets up a sequence of events to address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Furthermore, Examiner notes that the additional elements in Claim 2 and Claim 3 of Example 35 represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud prevention that performs identity verification in a non-conventional and non‐generic way, even though the steps use a combination of well‐known components (an ATM and mobile communication device).
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the instant application is similar to Example 35, Claim 1 that was found ineligible to overcome 101 rejection, because, the instant application’s combination of elements is just like that in Claim 1 of Example 35, wherein the combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts, and provides nothing more than mere automation of verification steps that were in years past performed mentally by tellers when engaging with a bank customer; and thus, in both cases, mere automation of an economic business practice does not provide significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept). Therefore, the instant application, similarly, does not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, based on Applicant’s arguments about “Family Account” and “Type of Chatroom”.
Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous Office Actions.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that some of those amendments fall under abstract idea and some of those amendments fall under extra-solution activities as described above. Further, the servers (messaging and remittance) and the user terminal are being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, under Step 2A, Prong One, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent claim 1 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” (based on recitation of at least “remittance service” & “remittance request”) and “commercial or legal interactions” (based on recitation of at least “messaging service” with “first user account” & “second user account”), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (based on recitation of at least “family account” that has to follow rules as well as rules to be followed by “remittance condition set”, and follow rules in chat room via “messaging server”). Independent Method Claim 1’s preamble recites --- {“A method of providing a remittance service by a messaging server for providing a messaging service by interoperating with a remittance server, the method comprising:”}. Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for trading financial instruments” recited in exemplary independent claim 1 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Accordingly, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 1 recites fundamental economic practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Examiner notes the claim limitations {“cover performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk based on recitations of at least ‘remittance/s and many account/s’), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations based on recitations of at least ‘whether the first user account is under a family account when the first user account is an account of a ward’), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions based on at least recitations of ‘a remittance condition set’), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices.”}. Therefore, it seems reasonable to the Examiner to group the abstract idea under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims overcome the prior art and includes an inventive concept that is an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments that the instant application “supports a finding of eligibility for amended claim 1” per the Office’s August 4, 2025 memorandum. In response, Examiner notes that using the generic processors in the instant application (remittance server and messaging server plus user terminal) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer components. And the absence of a user input is interpreted as executing an instruction of transmitting a remittance by a computer. Thus, it is using the computer as a tool, not an improvement to the technology or the computer itself.
Examiner notes, in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM), Federal Circuit found that: {an inventive concept can be found in the unconventional and non‐generic combination of known elements, and more specifically “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end‐users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user” where the filtering tool at the ISP is able to “identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account.” The Federal Circuit also determined that the claimed arrangement of elements in the system results in an improvement in the technology of filtering content on the Internet, because it offers “both the benefits of a filter on the local computer, and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.”} Examiner notes that the instant application does not have the same combination as BASCOM described above in {curly brackets}, and thus, it does not overcome 101 rejection. The instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea --- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Appellant. However, Examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).). Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor limitations do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application.
In making the determination of if the claimed idea is significantly more, the Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC §101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/fax phone number for the organization, where this application or proceeding is assigned, is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
PSA Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
02 MAY 2026
/SANJEEV MALHOTRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
