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
Applicant filed an amendment on February 02, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 are amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claim 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus claims 1-20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “at least as amended, the claims are not directed to any abstract idea, incorporate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application thereof, and include additional features amounting to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea; the features of the pending claims address at least the technical problem of enabling cross-rail fraud detection and mitigation within a single system in the technical field of transfer systems; and individually or in combination, based at least on these features, the features of the claims provide a technical improvement that incorporates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application thereof and/or amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses 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 judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20230401558 A1, para 3), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘558 A1, para 3), discloses that the invention relates to providing biller direct solutions as compared to traditional bill pay systems so younger generations can time their payments strategically, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, by a biller provider computing system, a customer eligibility request from a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale, the customer eligibility request including customer information associated with the customer and a biller identification associated with a biller; in response to receiving the customer eligibility request from the customer device, determining, by the biller provider computing system, an eligibility for message-enabled transfers for a plurality of payment rail options based on the customer information; transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a customer eligibility report for the customer to a biller computing system associated with the biller based on the biller identification; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a message-enabled transfer request from the biller computing system associated with the biller; transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer request message to the customer device based on receiving the message-enabled transfer request, the transfer request message including an embedded link; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a selection of the embedded link from the customer device; in response to receiving the selection of the embedded link: generating, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including a plurality of transfer preference options based on the customer information, the plurality of transfer preference options including a plurality of eligible payment rail options of the plurality of payment rail options, the plurality of eligible payment rail options including at least an account clearinghouse (ACH) rail option and a real-time payment (RTP) rail option; and transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer user interface to the customer device; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a request to initiate a transfer, the request including a selected transfer preference option from the customer device via the transfer user interface, the selected transfer preference option including a selected eligible payment rail option; detecting, by the biller provider computing system, potential fraud based on the transfer and at least one additional transfer associated with the customer and completed via a different payment rail than the selected eligible payment rail option; placing, by the biller provider computing system, a temporary hold on the transfer; transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a validation request to the customer device; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, validation information from the customer device; and initiating, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer from a customer account associated with the customer to a biller account associated with the biller based on the selected transfer preference option”, which represent the abstract idea of “providing bill pay options to make payment”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a biller provider computing system”, “a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale”, “an embedded link”, “generating, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface”, and “transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer user interface to the customer device”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “providing bill pay options to make payment”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “providing bill pay options to make payment”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “providing bill pay options to make payment”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a providing bill pay options to make payment concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “providing bill pay options to make payment”, as well as the additional elements of “a provider computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: …”, “a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale”, “a biller computing system associated with the biller”, “an embedded link”, “generating a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including”, and “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of “providing bill pay options to make payment” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processing circuits” and “one or more memories”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “providing bill pay options to make payment”, as well as the additional elements of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processing circuits, cause the one or more processing circuits to perform operations comprising: …”, “a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale”, “a biller computing system associated with the biller”, “an embedded link”, “generating a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including”, and “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of “providing bill pay options to make payment” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “an embedded link”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 25 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025, Applicant arguments are persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Specification, (PG Pub US 202230401558 A1, para 80), which recites “… upon the customer clicking on the link 704 provided in the transfer request message 702 on the customer device 104, the link navigates the customer to the website or banking application ( e.g., the customer client application 124) and the customer is provided, via the customer device 104, with the "opt in" user interface (e.g., the "opt in" user interface 800) and the transfer user interface (e.g., the transfer user interface 900) …”; and (‘558 A1, para 81) recites “… The "opt in" user interface 800 further provides an "opt in" button 804 configured to allow the customer to affirmatively opt in to the message-enabled transfer service ( e.g., thereby consenting to the terms and conditions) and a cancel button 806 configured to allow the customer to exit the website or banking application …”, which provides the support for the claim language “receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a selection of the embedded link from the customer device”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 25 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Applicant has amended so that claim 1 now recites “transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer user interface to the customer device”, which finds support in the specification, (PG Pub US 202230401558 A1, para 77), which recites “… the website or the banking application provided by the biller provider institution com-puting system 106 is configured to provide the customer device 104 with an "opt in" user interface (e.g., "opt in" user interface 800 shown in FIG. 8) and, upon the customer opting in to the message-enabled transfer service, a transfer user interface (e.g., transfer user interface 900 shown in FIG. 9), each similarly being generated and provided to the customer device 104 by the biller provider institution com-puting system 106. …”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 26 (claim 1) of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025.
However, Applicant has not adequately amended claims 8 and 15, which continue to recite “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device”. The specification does not adequately inform one of ordinary skill how the limitation “causing, …, the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device” is to be performed. Specification, (PG Pub US 20230401558 A1, para 105), recites “… the receivables processing circuit 136 is configured to selectively cause the message-enabled transfer circuit 134 to initiate commercial electronic office debit payments … and/or real-time payment credits …”, which discloses the receivables processing circuit being configured to selectively cause the message-enabled transfer circuit to initiate electronic debit payments and/or real-time payment credits, but does not disclose causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device.
Specification, (‘558 A1, para 108), recites “… upon scheduled transfers coming due, the receivables processing circuit 136 causes the message-enabled transfer circuit 134 to send a customer transfer request message to one or more customer device 104 associated with corresponding customers …”, which discloses the receivables processing circuit causing the message-enabled transfer circuit to send a customer transfer request message to one or more customer device, but does not disclose causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device. Thus, specification, (‘558 A1, paras 105, 108), does not disclose what causing comprises. Therefore, this remains an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Dependent claims 9-14, which depend from claim 8; and dependent claims 16-20, which depend from claim 15, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I). Examiner hereby maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 26 (claims 8 and 15) of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 28 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 9 recites “The provider computing system of claim 8, wherein the transfer request message is one of a text message, …” It is clear that the transfer message is one of a text message, …Therefore, the scope of claim 9 is clear. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 28 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 29 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 12 recites “The provider computing system of claim 11, wherein the eligibility for the message-enabled transfers for the one or more accounts is determined by validating the customer via a transfer of an amount …” It is clear that the determination is being made by validating the customer via a transfer of an amount … Therefore, the scope of claim 12 is clear. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 29 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 01, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated October 01, 2025.
Reference Kumar, (US 8103587 B2) teaches “receiving, by a biller provider computing system, a customer eligibility request from a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale, the customer eligibility request including customer information associated with the customer and a biller identification associated with a biller”,
“in response to receiving the customer eligibility request from the customer device, determining, by the biller provider computing system, an eligibility for message-enabled transfers for a plurality of payment rail options based on the customer information …”,
“ receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a message-enabled transfer request from the biller computing system associated with the biller”,
“transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer request message to the customer device based on receiving the message-enabled transfer request, the transfer request message including an embedded link”,
“receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a selection of the embedded link from the customer device”,
“in response to receiving the selection of the embedded link: generating, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including a plurality of transfer preference options based on the customer information, the plurality of transfer preference options including a plurality of eligible payment rail options of the plurality of payment rail options, the plurality of eligible payment rail options including at least an account clearinghouse (ACH) rail option and a real-time payment (RTP) rail option; and …”,
“initiating, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer from a customer account associated with the customer to a biller account associated with the biller based on the selected transfer preference option”,
Reference Purves, (US 20130346302 A1) teaches “transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a customer eligibility report for the customer to a biller computing system associated with the biller based on the biller identification …”,
“transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer user interface to the customer device …”,
“receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a request to initiate a transfer, the request including a selected transfer preference option from the customer device via the transfer user interface, the selected transfer preference option including a selected eligible payment rail option …”,
Reference Haddad, (US 20090048934 A1) teaches “detecting, by the biller provider computing system, potential fraud based on the transfer and at least one additional transfer associated with the customer and completed via a different payment rail than the selected eligible payment rail option …”,
“transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a validation request to the customer device”,
“receiving, by the biller provider computing system, validation information from the customer device; and …”,
Reference Kramme, (US 20210065186 A1) teaches “placing, by the biller provider computing system, a temporary hold on the transfer …”.
While the references teach each and every element of the claimed invention, there is no evidence in the record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention at the time of filling. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated October 01, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to “a method”, claims 8-14 are directed to “a system”, and claims 15-20 are directed to “non-transitory computer-readable media”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “providing bill pay options to make payment”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions and a form of fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, by a biller provider computing system, a customer eligibility request from a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale, the customer eligibility request including customer information associated with the customer and a biller identification associated with a biller; in response to receiving the customer eligibility request from the customer device, determining, by the biller provider computing system, an eligibility for message-enabled transfers for a plurality of payment rail options based on the customer information; transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a customer eligibility report for the customer to a biller computing system associated with the biller based on the biller identification; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a message-enabled transfer request from the biller computing system associated with the biller; transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer request message to the customer device based on receiving the message-enabled transfer request, the transfer request message including an embedded link; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a selection of the embedded link from the customer device; in response to receiving the selection of the embedded link: generating, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including a plurality of transfer preference options based on the customer information, the plurality of transfer preference options including a plurality of eligible payment rail options of the plurality of payment rail options, the plurality of eligible payment rail options including at least an account clearinghouse (ACH) rail option and a real-time payment (RTP) rail option; and transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer user interface to the customer device; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, a request to initiate a transfer, the request including a selected transfer preference option from the customer device via the transfer user interface, the selected transfer preference option including a selected eligible payment rail option; detecting, by the biller provider computing system, potential fraud based on the transfer and at least one additional transfer associated with the customer and completed via a different payment rail than the selected eligible payment rail option; placing, by the biller provider computing system, a temporary hold on the transfer; transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, a validation request to the customer device; receiving, by the biller provider computing system, validation information from the customer device; and initiating, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer from a customer account associated with the customer to a biller account associated with the biller based on the selected transfer preference option”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a biller provider computing system”, “a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale”, “an embedded link”, “generating, by the biller provider computing system, a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface”, and “transmitting, by the biller provider computing system, the transfer user interface to the customer device”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describes the concept of “providing bill pay options to make payment” using computer technology (e.g., “a biller provider computing system” and “a customer device”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “providing bill pay options to make payment”, as well as the additional elements of “a provider computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: …”, “a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale”, “a biller computing system associated with the biller”, “an embedded link”, “generating a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including”, and “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of “providing bill pay options to make payment” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processing circuits” and “one or more memories”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “providing bill pay options to make payment”, as well as the additional elements of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processing circuits, cause the one or more processing circuits to perform operations comprising: …”, “a customer device of a customer based on the customer device scanning a quick-response (QR) code or tapping a near-field communication (NFC) device at a point of sale”, “a biller computing system associated with the biller”, “an embedded link”, “generating a transfer user interface accessible by the customer device via the embedded link, the transfer user interface including”, and “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of “providing bill pay options to make payment” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “an embedded link”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the abstract idea of “providing bill pay options to make payment”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “providing bill pay options to make payment”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Hence, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter
Claim 8 recites “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device.” The specification does not adequately inform one of ordinary skill how the limitation “causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device” is to be performed. Specification, (PG Pub US 20230401558 A1, para 105), recites “… the receivables processing circuit 136 is configured to selectively cause the message-enabled transfer circuit 134 to initiate commercial electronic office debit payments … and/or real-time payment credits …”, which discloses the receivables processing circuit being configured to selectively cause the message-enabled transfer circuit to initiate electronic debit payments and/or real-time payment credits, but does not disclose causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device.
Specification, (‘558 A1, para 108), recites “… upon scheduled transfers coming due, the receivables processing circuit 136 causes the message-enabled transfer circuit 134 to send a customer transfer request message to one or more customer device 104 associated with corresponding customers …”, which discloses the receivables processing circuit causing the message-enabled transfer circuit to send a customer transfer request message to one or more customer device, but does not disclose causing the transfer user interface to be displayed via the customer device. Thus, specification, (‘558 A1, paras 105, 108), does not disclose what causing comprises. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 15. Dependent claims 9-14, which depend from claim 8; and dependent claims 16-20, which depend from claim 15, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liberty et al (U. S. Patent No. 11120413 B2) – Monetary Transaction System
Liberty discloses a monetary transaction system for conducting monetary transactions between transaction system subscribers and other entities. In one scenario, the monetary transaction system includes a mobile device that runs a monetary transaction system application. The monetary transaction system also includes a subscriber that has a profile with the system. The subscriber indicates a transaction that is to be performed with the monetary transaction system. The system further includes a monetary transaction system processor that performs the transactions specified by the subscriber including communicating with a monetary transaction database to determine whether the transaction is permissible based on data indicated in the subscriber's profile. The monetary transaction system also includes at least one entity that is to be involved in the specified transaction, where the entity has a profile with the monetary transaction system. This entity may be a person, a retail store, an agent or other entity.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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 D. Donlon can be reached (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights