Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 08/25/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 were amended.
Claims 21-23 were added.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 08/25/2025 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 3 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 6-8 and 16-17 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous §112 rejection of claim 6-8 and 16-17 have been overcome and withdrawn herein accordingly.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 4-6 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 7 of this final office action.
On page 4 of the Response, the Applicant submits “Claims 12-20 are amended to recite Non-transitory computer storage media”. In view of this amendment to claims 12-20, the claims are no longer considered to recite signals per se, and the corresponding §101 rejection has been withdrawn accordingly.
On page 4 of the Response, the Applicant argues “These features are not taught or disclosed in the prior art and represent significant improvement over the prior art […] The fact that the intermediary will enforce confirmed (signed) agreements between the sender and receiver increases the likelihood, compared to prior art methods, that the sender and receiver will negotiate in good faith with less likelihood of having to litigate after the transactions are complete”. Furthermore, on page 4 of the Response, the Applicant argues “This features eliminates that need for the purchaser and seller to provide transaction information to a transaction mechanism for authentication and/or fraud analysis, thereby making the payment process less risky, less complicated, and faster, compared to prior art methods”.
The Examiner notes that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination [….] As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter […] the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103”. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Furthermore, the described improvements directed to increasing the likelihood that “the sender and receiver will negotiate in good faith with less likelihood of having to litigate after transactions are complete” and “making the payment process less risky, less complicated, and faster” do not reflect an improvement to a technological field or functioning of a computer such as to implement the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, these purported improvements may be considered, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself (i.e., fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions). The Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
On page 5 of the Response, the Applicant argues “This step is not taught by prior art methods … This step is also not taught or suggested in prior art methods […] the amended claims 1 and 12 provide a computer implemented method for a simple, quick, safe, and reliable integration of sender and receiver negotiations into a purchase and sale agreement which is enforceable by an intermediary…These features provide significant improvement in fairness and convenience to a sender and a receiver”.
As noted further above, “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination [….] As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter […] the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103”. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Furthermore, the described improvements directed to providing a “simple, quick, safe, and reliable integration of sender and receiver negotiations” and providing “significant improvement in fairness and convenience to a sender and a receiver” do not reflect an improvement to a technological field or functioning of a computer such as to implement the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, these purported improvements may be considered, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself (i.e., fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). As currently drafted, the additional elements of the independent claims are various generic computer components and tools to implement the abstract idea. Because the invention is merely using various generic computer components simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 6-7 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-14, 18, and 20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended §103 rejection that may be found starting on page 29 of this final office action.
On pages 6-7 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record, namely Bishop, does not teach or suggest the features of the amended claims or newly added claims. In view of the amendments to the claims and newly added claims, the Examiner has set forth an amended §103 rejection of the claims with newly cited prior art.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 8 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended §103 rejection that may be found starting on page 29 of this final office action.
On page 8 of the Response, the Applicant submits “Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 and new claim 21 are allowable as depending from an allowable claim”. In view of the amendments to the claims and newly added claims, the Examiner has set forth an amended §103 rejection of the claims with newly cited prior art.
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.
Claims 1-23 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.
Independent claims 1, 12, 22, and 23 similarly recite “receiving by the sender the good and/or services from the receiver at the confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates”. Accordingly, the independent claims and their dependents are rendered indefinite for reciting a limitation for which there is a lack of antecedent basis.
For the sake of compact prosecution, these limitations will be interpreted as “receiving by the sender the good and/or services from the receiver at confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions”.
Claim 12 recites “the sender’s confirmed agreement transaction conditions”. Although the claim recites “confirming by the sender the transaction conditions”, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the sender’s confirmed agreement transaction conditions”. Accordingly, the claim 12 and its dependents are rendered indefinite for reciting a limitation for which there is a lack of antecedent basis. For the sake of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions”.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-11 and 21-23 are directed to a process (“a method”) and claims 12-20 are directed to a manufacture (“computer storage media”).
Thus, claims 1-23 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-23, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
1) […] wherein the intermediary communicates with and mediates and enforces negotiations between the sender and a receiver in transactions […];
2) Making payment by the sender to the intermediary […] for the purchase of goods and/or services of the receiver, wherein the payment is made before negotiations are made between the sender and the receiver for the purchase of the goods and/or service;
3) Entering by the sender […] into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […], the sender’s transaction conditions for the purchase of the goods and/or services and confirming by the sender the transaction conditions, and submitting […] the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
4) Notifying the receiver by the intermediary […], through the receiver’s […] system, of the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and of the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services to the intermediary, thereby initiating negotiations of the transaction conditions by the sender;
5) Receiving […] by the receiver from the intermediary the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […] updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into the […] entry forms the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, and submitting the receiver’s confirmed updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
6) Notifying the sender by the intermediary of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, thereby providing negotiation of the transaction conditions by the receiver;
7) Receiving by the sender the good and/or services from the receiver at the confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions;
8) Notifying the intermediary by the sender that the sender received the goods and/or service from the receiver;
9) Transferring by the intermediary to the receiver the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services, wherein confirming transaction conditions by the sender is equivalent to the sender providing the sender’s signature to transaction conditions and confirming transaction conditions by the receiver is equivalent to the receiver providing the receiver’s signature to transaction conditions, and wherein the sender receives the goods and/or services before payment is made to the receiver and wherein the receiver receives payment without dispute.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-11, 21, by virtue of dependence, recite features for mediating negotiations and payment transactions between senders and receivers by an intermediary, where the steps involve making payments for goods and/or services, entering/confirming/updating transaction conditions by senders and receivers, notifying the senders/receivers of information associated with the transaction, and transferring payments between senders and receivers by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts, sales activities, and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“connecting a computer system of an intermediary, over a network, by a sender using the sender’s computer system”, “the network”, “electronic entry forms”, “intermediary’s computer”, “sender’s computer system”, “receiver’s computer system”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the generic computer components, tools, and instructions to transmit information and facilitate payments (“the intermediary communicates […] over the network”, “making payment…over the network”, “notifying…over the network”, “receiving…over the network”, “entering…into electronic entry forms”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 12, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
1) […] wherein the intermediary communicates with and mediates and enforces negotiations between the sender and a receiver in transactions […];
2) Making payment by the sender to the intermediary […] for the purchase of goods and/or services of the receiver, wherein the payment is made before negotiations are made between the sender and the receiver for the purchase of the goods and/or service;
3) Entering by the sender […] into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […], the sender’s transaction conditions for the purchase of the goods and/or services and confirming by the sender the transaction conditions, and submitting […] the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
4) Notifying the receiver by the intermediary […], through the receiver’s […] system, of the sender’s confirmed agreement transaction conditions and of the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services to the intermediary, thereby initiating negotiations of the transaction conditions by the sender;
5) Receiving […] by the receiver from the intermediary the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […] updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into the […] entry forms the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, and submitting the receiver’s confirmed updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
6) Notifying the sender by the intermediary of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, thereby providing negotiation of the transaction conditions by the receiver;
7) Receiving by the sender the good and/or services from the receiver at the confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions;
8) Notifying the intermediary by the sender that the sender received the goods and/or service from the receiver;
9) Transferring by the intermediary to the receiver the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services, wherein confirming transaction conditions by the sender is equivalent to the sender providing the sender’s signature to transaction conditions and confirming transaction conditions by the receiver is equivalent to the receiver providing the receiver’s signature to transaction conditions, and wherein the sender receives the goods and/or services before payment is made to the receiver and wherein the receiver receives payment without dispute.
Therefore, claims 12 and 13-20, by virtue of dependence, recite features for mediating negotiations and payment transactions between senders and receivers by an intermediary, where the steps involve making payments for goods and/or services, entering and confirming transaction conditions by senders and receivers, notifying the senders/receivers of information associated with the transaction, and transferring payments between senders and receivers by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts, sales activities, and business relations.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“Non transitory computer storage media having computer executable instructions stored thereon”, “processors”, “computer implemented method”, “connecting a computer system of an intermediary, over a network, by a sender using the sender’s computer system”, “the network”, “electronic entry forms”, “intermediary’s computer”, “sender’s computer system”, “receiver’s computer system”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the generic computer components, tools, and instructions to transmit information and facilitate payments (“the intermediary communicates… over the network”, “making payment…over the network”, “notifying…over the network”, “receiving…over the network”, “entering…into electronic entry forms”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 22, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
1) […] wherein the intermediary communicates with and mediates and enforces negotiations between the sender and a receiver in transactions […];
2) Making payment by a party other than the sender to the intermediary […] for the purchase of goods and/or services of the receiver, wherein the payment is made before negotiations are made between the sender and the receiver for the purchase of the goods and/or service;
3) Entering by the sender […] into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […], the sender’s transaction conditions for the purchase of the goods and/or services and confirming by the sender the transaction conditions, and submitting […] the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
4) Notifying the receiver by the intermediary […], through the receiver’s […] system, of the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and of the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services to the intermediary, thereby initiating negotiations of the transaction conditions by the sender;
5) Receiving […] by the receiver from the intermediary the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […] updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into the […] entry forms the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, and submitting the receiver’s confirmed updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
6) Notifying the sender by the intermediary of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, thereby providing negotiation of the transaction conditions by the receiver;
7) Receiving by the sender the good and/or services from the receiver at the confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions;
8) Notifying the intermediary by the sender that the sender received the goods and/or service from the receiver;
9) Transferring by the intermediary to the receiver the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services, wherein confirming transaction conditions by the sender is equivalent to the sender providing the sender’s signature to transaction conditions and confirming transaction conditions by the receiver is equivalent to the receiver providing the receiver’s signature to transaction conditions, and wherein the sender receives the goods and/or services before payment is made to the receiver and wherein the receiver receives payment without dispute.
Therefore, claim 22 recites features for mediating negotiations and payment transactions between senders and receivers by an intermediary, where the steps involve making payments for goods and/or services, entering/confirming/updating transaction conditions by senders and receivers, notifying the senders/receivers of information associated with the transaction, and transferring payments between senders and receivers by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts, sales activities, and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“connecting to a computer system of an intermediary, over a network, by a sender using the sender’s computer system”, “the network”, “electronic entry forms”, “intermediary’s computer”, “sender’s computer system”, “receiver’s computer system”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the generic computer components, tools, and instructions to transmit information and facilitate payments (“the intermediary communicates […] over the network”, “making payment…over the network”, “notifying…over the network”, “receiving…over the network”, “entering…into electronic entry forms”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 23, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
1) […] wherein the intermediary communicates with and mediates and enforces negotiations between the sender and a receiver in transactions […];
2) Making payment by the sender to the intermediary […] for the purchase of goods and/or services of the receiver, wherein the payment is made before negotiations are made between the sender and the receiver for the purchase of the goods and/or service;
3) Entering by the sender […] into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […], the sender’s transaction conditions for the purchase of the goods and/or services and confirming by the sender the transaction conditions, and submitting […] the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
4) Notifying the receiver by the intermediary […], through the receiver’s […] system, of the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and of the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services to the intermediary, thereby initiating negotiations of the transaction conditions by the sender;
5) Receiving […] by the receiver from the intermediary the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into […] entry forms provided by the intermediary’s […] updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions and entering by the receiver into the […] entry forms the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, and submitting the receiver’s confirmed updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions to the intermediary;
6) Notifying the sender by the intermediary of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions, thereby providing negotiation of the transaction conditions by the receiver;
7) Receiving by the sender the good and/or services from the receiver at the confirmation by the sender of the receiver’s confirmation of the receiver’s updates to the sender’s confirmed transaction conditions;
8) Notifying the intermediary by the sender that the sender received the goods and/or service from the receiver;
9) Transferring by the intermediary to the receiver the sender’s payment for the goods and/or services, wherein confirming transaction conditions by the sender is equivalent to the sender providing the sender’s signature to transaction conditions and confirming transaction conditions by the receiver is equivalent to the receiver providing the receiver’s signature to transaction conditions, and wherein the sender receives the goods and/or services before payment is made for the goods and services and wherein a party other than the receiver receives the payment for the goods and services without dispute.
Therefore, claim 23 recites features for mediating negotiations and payment transactions between senders and receivers by an intermediary, where the steps involve making payments for goods and/or services, entering/confirming/updating transaction conditions by senders and receivers, notifying the senders/receivers of information associated with the transaction, and transferring payments between senders and receivers by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts, sales activities, and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“connecting a computer system of an intermediary, over a network, by a sender using the sender’s computer system”, “the network”, “electronic entry forms”, “intermediary’s computer”, “sender’s computer system”, “receiver’s computer system”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the generic computer components, tools, and instructions to transmit information and facilitate payments (“the intermediary communicates […] over the network”, “making payment…over the network”, “notifying…over the network”, “receiving…over the network”, “entering…into electronic entry forms”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 23 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 have been given the full two party analysis, analyzing the additional elements both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites steps for confirming transaction conditions by a sender and receiver by an intermediary – and authorizing an intermediary to enforce transaction conditions. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites steps for holding a sender’s payment in escrow by an intermediary until confirmed transaction conditions are met by a receiver. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites steps for making a payment by a sender and receiver to an intermediary for services provided by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting a payment “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites steps for an intermediary to request a receiver to enter proof of completion of performance of transaction conditions and enabling the receiver to enter the proof of completion of performance of transaction conditions via entry forms. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites steps for verifying the proof of completion of the performance of the confirmed transaction conditions entered by the receiver and notifying the sender of the proof of completion of the performance of confirmed transaction conditions. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites steps for enabling a sender to enter into entry forms confirmation of the proof of completion of the performance of confirmed transaction conditions by the receiver and verifying by the intermediary the sender’s confirmation. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites steps for notifying a receiver by the intermediary that payment for withdrawal is available to the receiver, requesting from the intermediary by the receiver payment for withdrawal, sending payment to the receiver by the intermediary, and notifying the sender and the receiver of the proof of completion of the performance of the confirmed transaction conditions by both the sender and receiver. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information and payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites steps of notifying a receiver that no good and/or services were delivered to a sender, receiving no response from the receiver after notifying the receiver within a period of time specified in confirmed transaction conditions, requesting by the sender from the intermediary return of payment to the sender, and sending by the intermediary the payment to the sender. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information and payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites steps for notifying a sender through the intermediary of delivery of goods and/or services, receiving no response by the receiver from the sender through the intermediary after notifying the sender within a period of time specified in the transaction conditions, requesting by the receiver payment to the receiver by the intermediary for the delivery of goods and services, and sending the payment to the receiver by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information and payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites steps for delivering goods and/or services to the sender within a period of time specified in confirmed transaction conditions, giving no notice to the sender through the intermediary of delivery of goods/services within a period of time after delivery of goods/services specified in transaction conditions, receiving no notification from the sender that the goods/services are received by the sender, requesting payment from the intermediary by the receiver for the delivery of the goods/services, and sending payment to the receiver by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information and payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is found to recite the same abstract idea as discussed above with regard to claim 2. Furthermore, the limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 12 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information and payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites steps for holding a sender’s payment in escrow by an intermediary until confirmed transaction conditions are met by a receiver and steps for making a payment by a sender and receiver to an intermediary for services provided by the intermediary. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 12 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is found to recite the same abstract idea as discussed above with regard to claim 5. Furthermore, the limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 12 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is found to recite the same abstract idea as discussed above with regard to claim 6. Furthermore, the limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 12 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites steps for enabling a sender to enter into entry forms confirmation of the proof of completion of the performance of transaction conditions by the receiver, verifying by the intermediary the sender’s confirmation, notifying a receiver by the intermediary that payment for withdrawal is available to the receiver, requesting from the intermediary by the receiver payment for withdrawal, sending payment to the receiver by the intermediary, and notifying the sender and the receiver of the proof of completion of the performance of the transaction conditions by both the sender and receiver. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in the form of contracts and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 12 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. The claim merely further uses a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on (i.e., transmitting information and payments “over a network”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See