DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement dated September 18, 2025.
2. Claims 1-4 and 27-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. By their response, Applicant has elected Group I, Claims 1-4, without traverse.
4. Applicant has also added new claims 27-29 as part of Group I with their most recent submission.
5. Claims 5-9, 11-15, 17-24, and 26 have been withdrawn from consideration
6. Claims 10, 16, 25 have been canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
7. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
8. The drawings of Figure 1 are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
9. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
- In reference to Figure 5, reference characters "530" and "730" have both been used to designate a credit scoring agency. (See Applicant Spec para 97)
- In reference to Figure 5, reference characters “540” and “740” have both been used to designate a financial entity. (See Applicant Spec para 97)
- In reference to Figure 42, reference characters “4220” and “4210” have both been used to designate the back-end system. (See Applicant Spec para 152)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
10. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In reference to Figure 5, reference character #550 is used to denote the merchant app in the drawing, however is not mentioned in the specification.
In reference to Figure 16, reference character #1628 is used to denote the account balance updated in the drawing, however is not mentioned in the specification.
In reference to Figure 25, reference character #2514 is used to denote the merchant shows QR code to customer in the drawing, however is not mentioned in the specification.
In reference to Figure 34, reference character #3422 is used to denote amount credited to gift card provider account in the figure, however is not mentioned in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
11. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim recites "[a] method of providing access to a multi-platform consolidated communication and financial account, the method comprising:” In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “of providing access to a multi-platform consolidated communication and financial account” as recited in the preamble only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Similarly, in the instant case, the following italicized limitations are expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited and are not being given additional weight.
As in Claim 1:
performing a first verification of the user with a first service provider using the identifying information to verify an identity of the user;
linking a payment account of the user to the device to allow for payment by the user via the device.
As in Claim 3:
further comprising, prior to performing the first verification of the user, receiving a request from the user to identify an authorized agent to establish an account for the user on the device.
As in Claim 4:
receiving confirmation of the identifying information from an agent in physical proximity to the user, wherein the confirmation indicates that the agent has independently verified the accuracy of the identifying information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
12. Claims 2-4 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim earlier refers to “a communication device” and “a user device management system”. It appears that Applicant intends “the device” to refer to the “communication device” and will be interpreted in this manner for purposes of examination, however appropriate correction is required. Dependent Claims 2-4 and 27-29 are further rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
13. Claims 1-4, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing access to a communication and financial account. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving identifying information from a user;
performing a first verification of the user with a first service provider using the identifying information to verify an identity of the user;
performing a second verification of the identity of the user via a second service provider, the second service provider being separate from the first service provider;
responsive to a successful first verification and a successful second verification of the identity of the user, creating a multi-platform consolidated communication and financial account;
creating a record, the record specifying the identity of the user, the account and a unique identifier provided to the user; and
linking a payment account of the user to allow for payment by the user.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim may reflect no more than receiving information to verify a user’s identity, establishing an account in response to the successful verification, creating a record [account] that specifies a user identity, account and a unique identifier and linking a payment account of the user to allow for payments to be made by the user. As claimed, this is not dissimilar to those procedures used to establish utility payment accounts where a user provides multiple pieces of identifying information to verify their identity and if successful, creating a new account that specifies a user’s identity, the account, and a unique identifier [account number] and linking a payment account to allow for payment by the user as may be seen in an autopay set up. As a result, the abstract idea describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to certain methods of human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) as seen above.
In the case of the instant claims, for the example, the claims recite no more than receiving information that may be manually recorded, using generic computer technology to receive, analyze and present the received information to create an account and then linking a payment account to allow the user to make payments. (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In particular, the claim only recites a communication device, one or more communication networks, and a user device management system which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
“The present disclosure provides a way to have funds transferred to a personal mobile customer device such as a cellphone to allow the users to use their cellphones to perform many functions traditionally performed with banking accounts. For example, the users may make payments at stores using their phone, may make payments over the internet and perform other traditional banking transactions using their phones. In some embodiments, the phone device may operate like to a prepaid credit or debit card with similar credentials to the prepaid debit or credit card stored in the phone and associated with a unique and singular account on a trusted bank server. Thus, embodiments of the present disclosure provide methods of loading credit into a personal electronic device or phone, without the need to open a formal bank account, is an effective solution for unbanked customers.” (See Applicant Spec para 48)
“The present disclosure may be implemented as a system, a method, and/or a computer program product operationalized on a communication device or a mobile telephone. The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) such as a memory having computer readable program instructions stored thereon for causing a processor to carry out certain aspects of the present disclosure.” (See Applicant Spec para 153)
“The computer readable storage medium such as the memory can be a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device (such as the data processor(s) of the computer, as shown as the device of FIG. 1. The computer readable storage medium may be on a same or different chip as the data processor, and for example may be but is not limited to an electronic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of the computer readable storage medium includes the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD), a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such as punch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructions recorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire.” (See Applicant Spec para 154)
“Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations of the present disclosure may be assembler instructions, instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions, state-setting data, or either source code or object code written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++ or the like, and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The computer readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user’s computer, partly on the user’s computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user’s computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user’s computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider). In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example, programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or programmable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readable program instructions by utilizing state information of the computer readable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry, in order to perform aspects of the present disclosure.” (See Applicant Spec para 156)
“These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can direct a computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the computer readable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises an article of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects of the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.” (See Applicant Spec para 157)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 27-29 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claim 1 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. No additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-4 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharris (US PG Pub 2009/0254479) (“Pharris”) in view of Naujok et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0201476) (“Naujok”)
Regarding Claim 1, Pharris discloses the following:
A method of providing access to a multi-platform consolidated communication and financial account, the method comprising:
receiving identifying information from a user; (See Pharris paras 24, 37-38, 41, 60 – individual enrolls their mobile telephone in the payment transaction system by providing a cell phone number along with information as needed to identify that individual, in particular including identifying information (e.g., a driver’s license, passport, or other government issued identification number)
performing a first verification of the user with a first service provider using the identifying information to verify an identity of the user; (See Pharris paras 25, 41, 60-61 – vet the enrollment information provided by the user as needed to ensure that the individual is in fact who they represent themselves to be; enrolling user may supply identification data (e.g., driver’s license or passport number) at an enrollment kiosk, a web browser or a user may interact with a clerk at a merchant participating in the enrollment process; the transaction server may communicate with third-party identification services)
performing a second verification of the identity of the user via a second service provider, the second service provider being separate from the first service provider; (See Pharris paras 25, 41, 60-61 – that a service provider for the mobile phone being enrolled has an account for the phone that is associated with the individual; enrolling user may indicate a service provider from which they receive mobile phone services)
responsive to a successful first verification and a successful second verification of the identity of the user, creating a multi-platform consolidated communication and financial account; (See Pharris paras 26, 41-42, 44 – once the information is vetted by the payment transaction server, a bank account may be opened for the user; in response to the data supplied by the enrolling user being successfully validated, the transaction server may communicate with an affiliate bank and in response, the affiliate bank establishes a bank account tied directly to the mobile phone which may be a combination of the user’s mobile phone number and a 10 digit bank account number assigned by the affiliate bank [multi-platform consolidated communication and financial account])
creating a record in a user device management system, the record specifying the identity of the user, the account, and a unique identifier of the communication device provided to the user; and (See Pharris paras 41, 48, 50, 54-55 – the application server [user device management system] includes a payment services component, a merchant services component, an identity services component, an instant check component, an affiliate bank communications component, a paycode/barcode management component, an auditing component, and an enrollment registration component. The identity services component may be used to store the identification information used to enroll a given user in the mobile telephone transaction system. The auditing component may be configured to create and manage a log [record] of both actions of the other components of the application server as well as record a log of each transaction initiated, completed or interrupted by an enrolled mobile phone or participating merchant. As part of the enrollment process, once a user supplies their mobile telephone number and identification information, the enrollment kiosk may communicate this information to the transaction server – the enrollment kiosk may communicate with the transaction server to verify the IMEI number [unique identifier of the communication device] associated with the mobile phone being enrolled is associated with the telephone number provided by the individual)
linking a payment account of the user to the device to allow for payment by the user via the device. (See Pharris paras 36, 40, 42, 44, 47 – once the enrolling user is successfully validated, the affiliate bank establishes a bank account tied directly to the mobile device and once established the user may use the mobile device to directly initiate payment transactions with merchants)
While Pharris discloses the limitations as seen above, it does not disclose:
providing a communication device to the user, the communication device providing access to one or more communication networks; (See Naujok paras 3-4, 6, 34, 46-47 – providing web access to the Internet via mobile cellular communications devices; porting a subscriber identifier to a new communications device)
Naujok discloses his invention as to methods, apparatuses and/or articles of manufacture as to access a data store to determine that signal packets have been received via an electronic communication network from a communications device that is to be verified. (See Naujok Abstract) The communications device is co-located with a real-world identity and the method may determine that a subscriber account identifier or a subscriber-unique alias is bound to an account held by the real-world identity and electronically tying the subscriber account identifier or subscriber-unique alias to the real-world identity in response to verifying the communication device and determining that subscriber account number or subscriber alias is bound to the account held by the real-world identity. (See Naujok Abstract)
In particular embodiments, the one or more deterministic events corresponds to an online behavior including one or more of a porting of a subscriber identifier from a first communication services carrier to a second communication services carrier, a purchase or replacement of the communications device with a previously unused communications device, a removal and/or replacement of a subscriber identity module, or a password reset of the communications device. (See Naujok para 6 – porting a subscriber identifier to a new communications device [providing a communications device to the user])
In particular embodiments, the method includes initiating a comparison between a parameter provided by a real-world identity and a parameter accessed from the data store. (See Naujok para 6) In particular embodiments, the initiating follows receiving a response to a request from the communications device to authenticate the real-world identity. (See Naujok para 6) In particular embodiments, responsive to electronically tying the subscriber account identifier or the subscriber-unique alias to the real-world identity, the method includes establishing one or more additional ties between the real-world identity co-located with the communications device and a corresponding one or more logical entities. (See Naujok para 6) In particular embodiments, the one or more logical entities include one or more email addresses, one or more Internet protocol (IP) addresses, one or more additional communication devices, one or more streaming devices, one or more social network identifiers, one or more account numbers of one or more financial institutions, or any combination thereof. (See Naujok para 6 – linking a payment account of the user to the device)
In particular embodiments, the method may further include establishing one or more additional ties between the real-world identity co-located with the communications device and a corresponding one or more legal entities, which may include one or more of a driver’s license number, a passport number, or a legal address. (See Naujok para 6) In particular embodiments, the method may additionally include accessing biometric parameters from a communications device corresponding to the subscriber account identifier or the subscriber-unique alias. (See Naujok para 6, 8)
Naujok discloses that a communications device may be instrumental in providing a tie between a real-world subscriber and a digital identity of a subscriber. (See Naujok para 46)
In an implementation, a communications infrastructure may facilitate an identity verification platform to establish a tie between a subscriber’s real-world and digital identity where a communication device may include cellular telephones, smart telephones, etc. (See Naujok para 47 and Fig. 1) Further, each communication device under the control of, or in possession of a particular subscriber, may utilize a protected area in memory, which may store physical parameters (e.g., biometric parameters) of a user. (See Naujok para 47) Responsive to a subscriber utilizing a particular communications device (e.g., such as a mobile cellular telephone) to purchase goods or services, biometric parameters of the subscriber may be accessed from the particular device (e.g., mobile cellular telephone, laptop, etc.), such as by a merchant, so as to enable the merchant to verify the identity of the subscriber. (See Naujok para 47 – biometric parameters of the subscriber may be accessed from the particular device to enable a merchant to verify the subscriber identity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the systems and methods for enrolling mobile devices to be used as a payment device for a variety of financial transactions as disclosed by Pharris with the provision of a communication device [which may include a personal cellular communications device] to the user as part of a process to authenticate the real-world identity by tying the subscriber account identifier or the subscriber unique alias to the real-world identity as taught by Naujok in order reduce the risk of fraudulent behavior.
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Pharris discloses the following:
further comprising, prior to performing the first verification of the user, receiving a request from the user to identify an authorized agent to establish an account for the user on the device. (See Pharris paras 8, 10, 23-24, 36-37, 60-61)
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Pharris discloses the following:
wherein the step of performing the first verification of the user further comprises:
receiving confirmation of the identifying information from an agent in physical proximity to the user, wherein the confirmation indicates that the agent has independently verified the accuracy of the identifying information; (See Pharris paras 60-61, Claim 1 – when enrolling a mobile telephone in a mobile telephone transaction system, the enrolling user may supply identification data (e.g., driver’s license or passport number) the user may interact with a kiosk, a web browser or a clerk at a merchant participating in the enrollment process [agent in physical proximity to the user]. Once supplied, the enrollment data is transmitted to the transaction server and once received, the transaction server may verify the information supplied by the enrolling user. The transaction server may communicate with third-party identification services)
sending the identifying information to a telephone service provider; (See Pharris paras 60-61, Claims 2-3 – enrolling user may indicate a service provider from which they receive mobile phone services [telephone service provider]. The transaction server may communicate to the service provider to verify that the phone being enrolled is associated with the phone number supplied by the enrolling user)
receiving, from the telephone service provider, a confirmation that the identifying information matches a user record of an account at the telephone service provider. (See Pharris paras 60-61, Claims 2-3 – The transaction server may communicate to the service provider to verify that the phone being enrolled is associated with the phone number supplied by the enrolling user as well as verify that the enrolling user has an account with the service provider; enrolling the mobile telephone comprises confirming that a service provider has a mobile telephone account for the mobile telephone associated with a subscriber matching the identity of the individual)
Regarding Claim 27, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Pharris in view of Naujok discloses the following:
wherein the first verification, the second verification, or both comprise verifying a biometric signature of the user via a third service provider separate from the first service provider and the second service provider.
In addition to the disclosure provided above as if recited herein in full, Pharris also notes that the identity services component may be used to store the identification information used to enroll a given user in the mobile telephone transaction system. (See Pharris para 50) For example, the identification number of a driver’s license or passport, as well as biometric data such as a camera or fingerprint scan obtained during the enrollment process. (See Pharris para 50)
Pharris also notes that the enrollment process may be performed with a clerk at a merchant [third service provider] participating in the enrollment process and that the transaction server may communicate with third-party identification services [for first verification]. (See Pharris paras 60-61 and Fig.4) However, Pharris does not fully discloses verifying a biometric signature of the user
Naujok discloses his invention as to methods, apparatuses and/or articles of manufacture as to access a data store to determine that signal packets have been received via an electronic communication network from a communications device that is to be verified. (See Naujok Abstract) The communications device is co-located with a real-world identity and the method may determine that a subscriber account identifier or a subscriber-unique alias is bound to an account held by the real-world identity and electronically tying the subscriber account identifier or subscriber-unique alias to the real-world identity in response to verifying the communication device and determining that subscriber account number or subscriber alias is bound to the account held by the real-world identity. (See Naujok Abstract)
In particular embodiments, the one or more deterministic events corresponds to an online behavior including one or more of a porting of a subscriber identifier from a first communication services carrier to a second communication services carrier, a purchase or replacement of the communications device with a previously unused communications device, a removal and/or replacement of a subscriber identity module, or a password reset of the communications device. (See Naujok para 6 – porting a subscriber identifier to a new communications device [providing a communications device to the user])
In particular embodiments, the method includes initiatin