DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 the Application
The Amendment filed March 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, and 13-14 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 30, 2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Double Patenting: Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,853,919 B1 to Mangat; Balinder et al., (hereinafter "BALINDER-Claims") in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,853,919 B1 to Mangat; Balinder et al., (hereinafter "BALINDER-A"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons detailed below.
Claim 1, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 1 is an independent claim. The combined disclosures and teachings of BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A taken together render obvious the claimed subject matter of claim 1 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 1, a method of facilitating a payment to a merchant, the method comprising: Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: doesn't expressly and explicitly recite a method of facilitating a payment to a merchant, the method comprising --- however BALINDER-A: clearly discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the feature -- "a method of facilitating a payment to a merchant" col. 1 lns. 22-43; and "[a] method" Claim 8 or "the method" Claim 8 or "[t]he method" Claims 9-11); [See Remarks Below];
With respect to above-noted claimed element the above "a method..." line limitation which is disclosed by BALINDER-A: the teachings and/or suggestions within the disclosure of BALINDER-Claims thus far relied upon fails to record within its descriptions an explicit and express recital of the above "a method..." line limitation as presented within the claim under examination. Nonetheless, herein relied upon are portions of the disclosure of BALINDER-A which sufficiently teaches the feature apposite to the claimed invention as commented about above with citation(s) to exemplary disclosures within BALINDER-A that teach and/or suggest the claimed feature. At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relied upon teachings of BALINDER-Claims by adding or substituting the feature the above "a method..." line limitation as taught and/or suggested by BALINDER-A, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. The addition or substitution of this known feature by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have yielded predictable results that were easily foreseeable to that one person of ordinary skill in the art at that time. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of BALINDER-Claims with these aforementioned teachings of the above "a method..." line limitation sufficiently taught, suggested, and/or disclosed in BALINDER-A because that skilled one artisan having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have had a motivation of "[o]ther substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention as expressed in the appended claims". (BALINDER-A: col. 15 lns. 15-29).
• 1 ¶ 2 • receiving, by a computing system from a first user device, a request to fund a purchase of a first user from the merchant with funds from a second user; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "receive, from a first user device, a request to fund a purchase of a first user from the merchant with funds from a second user via a [] computing system" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 3 • transmitting, by the computing system, a message including the request to fund the purchase of the first user to a second user device associated with the second user, the request comprising first location information; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transmit a message including the request to fund the purchase of the first user to a second user device associated with the second user" Claim 1 and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8 and "the request comprising a location [] information" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 4 • receiving, by the computing system from the second user device, an indication that the message is being viewed; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "computing system [] to [] receive, from the second user device, an indication that the message is being viewed" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 5 • in response to receiving the indication that the message is being viewed, receiving, by the computing system, updated location information regarding a current location of the first user device; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "computing system [] to [] in response to receiving the indication that the message is being viewed, [] receive the updated location information from the first user device [] the updated location information of a current location of the first user device" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 6 • transmitting, by the computing system, updated payment information to the first user device, the updated payment information including a payment code, the updated payment information including a payment code, the updated payment information transmitted in response to receiving an approval from the second user device; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "upon receiving an approval from the second user device [] transmit updated payment information to the first user device, the updated payment information including the digital token" Claim 1 and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8)
• 1 ¶ 7 • receiving, by the computing system, a transaction request from the merchant, the transaction request including the payment code, the payment code comprising a geographical restriction such that the payment code is valid only at a location associated with the first location information; and Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "receive a[] transaction request from the merchant point of sale system, the updated transaction request including the digital token" Claim 1 and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8 and "the request comprising a location of the merchant [] the digital token comprising a [] code and further comprising a geographic restriction [] such that the digital token is valid only at the location of the merchant" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 8 • transmitting, by the computing system, an approval message to the merchant based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user device is associated with the first location information. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: doesn't expressly and explicitly recite transmitting, by the computing system, an approval message to the merchant based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user device is associated with the first location information --- however BALINDER-A: clearly discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the feature -- "transmitting, by the processor, an approval message to [] the merchant" Claim 8 and and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8 and "financial institution computing system 102 [] returns either a transaction confirmation [] to the POS system 112 to provide an indication to the merchant 108 as to the approval status of the funds transfer" col. 3 ln. 42 - col. 4 ln. 4 and "updated first user location information is transmitted to the second user's mobile device at 212[; t]he financial institution computing system 102 requests location information relating to the first user's mobile device and transmits the received location information to the second user's mobile device[; t]he updated first user location information lets the second user know where the first user is at the time of the contact reading the funding request message[; t]he first user's location may be used by the second user to determine that the first user is in the vicinity of the merchant 108[; t]his information may be used by the second user to determine that the first user is still seeking funding for the purchase and that the request is still valid[; f]or example, if the current location of the first user is fifty miles away from the merchant 108, the second user may choose to deny the request for funding because it is evident that the first user no longer needs the goods or services offered by the merchant 108[; t]he updated first user location is displayed to the second user along with the funding request message" col. 7 ln. 64 - col. 8 ln. 21 and "the fund request message includes current first user location information 408[; t]he current first user location information 408 is received from the first user's mobile device at 210 of method 200" col. 8 lns. 22-42 and "response options allow the second user to accept the funding request as sent by interacting with the accept button 408" col. 8 ln. 43 - col. 9 ln. 17); [See Remarks Below];
With respect to above-noted claimed element the above "transmitting..." line limitation which is disclosed by BALINDER-A: the teachings and/or suggestions within the disclosure of BALINDER-Claims thus far relied upon fails to include within its writings an explicit and express recital of the above "transmitting..." line limitation as presented within the claim under examination. Nonetheless, herein relied upon are portions of the disclosure of BALINDER-A which sufficiently teaches the feature appurtenant to the claimed invention as pointed out above with quotation(s) of exemplary disclosures within BALINDER-A that teach and/or suggest the claimed feature. At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relied upon teachings of BALINDER-Claims by adding or substituting the feature the above "transmitting..." line limitation as taught and/or suggested by BALINDER-A, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. The addition or substitution of this known feature by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have yielded predictable results that were readily discernable to that one person of ordinary skill in the art at that time. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of BALINDER-Claims with these aforementioned teachings of the above "transmitting..." line limitation sufficiently taught, suggested, and/or disclosed in BALINDER-A because that one skilled artisan having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have had a motivation of "[o]ther substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention as expressed in the appended claims". (BALINDER-A: col. 15 lns. 15-29).
Claim 3, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 3 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 3 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, the combined disclosures and teachings of BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A taken together render obvious the claimed subject matter of claim 3 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 3, the method of claim 1, further comprising
• 3 ¶ 2 • receiving, by the computing system, an indication from the second user device that the message was opened by the second user. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: doesn't expressly and explicitly recite receiving, by the computing system, an indication from the second user device that the message was opened by the second user --- however BALINDER-A: clearly discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the feature -- "[a]n indication that the funding request message was opened is received" col. 7 ln. 64 - col. 8 ln. 21 and "receive, from the second user device, an indication that the message is being viewed by the second user" Claim 1 or "receiving an indication that the first user is viewing the message" Claims 8, 12; and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8); [See Remarks Below];
With respect to above-noted claimed element the above "receiving..." line limitation which is disclosed by BALINDER-A: the teachings and/or suggestions within the disclosure of BALINDER-Claims thus far relied upon does not include within its explanations an explicit and express recitation of the above "receiving..." line limitation as required by the claim under examination. Notwithstanding the foregoing, herein relied upon are portions of the disclosure of BALINDER-A which sufficiently teaches the feature appurtenant to the claimed invention as annotated above with citation(s) to exemplary disclosures within BALINDER-A that teach and/or suggest the claimed feature. At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relied upon teachings of BALINDER-Claims by adding or substituting the feature the above "receiving..." line limitation as taught and/or suggested by BALINDER-A, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. The addition or substitution of this known feature by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have yielded predictable results that were plainly reckonable to that ordinarily skilled one person in the art at that time. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of BALINDER-Claims with these above-described teachings of the above "receiving..." line limitation sufficiently taught, suggested, and/or disclosed in BALINDER-A because that one artisan of skill having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have had a motivation of "[o]ther substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention as expressed in the appended claims". (BALINDER-A: col. 15 lns. 15-29).
Claim 4, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 4 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 3, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 3 and 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 4 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 4, the method of claim 3, further comprising
• 4 ¶ 2 • transmitting, by the computing system, the updated location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transmit the updated location information of a current location of the first user device to the second user device" Claim 1 or "the at least one processor to transmit updated location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device" Claim 2; and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8)
Claim 5, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 5 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 5 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 5 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 5, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
• 5 ¶ 2 • receiving, by the computing system, a funding request denial from the second user device; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "the at least one processor to: receive a funding request denial from the second user device" Claim 3 and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8)
• 5 ¶ 3 • receiving, by the computing system, a second request to fund the purchase of the first user, wherein the second request identifies a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase; and Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "receive a second request to fund the purchase of the first user, wherein the second request identifies a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase" Claim 3 and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8)
• 5 ¶ 4 • transmitting, by the computing system, a second message including the second request to a third user device associated with the third user. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transmit a second message including the second request to a third user device associated with the third user" Claim 3)
Claim 6, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 6 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 5, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 5 and 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 6 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 6, the method of claim 5,
• 6 ¶ 2 • wherein the second message indicates that the second user already denied the request. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "wherein the second message indicates that the second user already denied the request" Claim 4)
Claim 7, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 7 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 7 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 7, the method of claim 1, further comprising
• 7 ¶ 2 • transferring funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with the merchant. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transfer the funds[] from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with the merchant" Claim 5)
Claim 8, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 8 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 8 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 8, the method of claim 1, further comprising
• 8 ¶ 2 • scheduling, by the computing system, an automated transfer from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "schedule an automated transfer from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user" Claim 6 and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8)
Claim 9, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 9 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 9 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 9, the method of claim 1,
• 9 ¶ 2 • wherein the payment code is a barcode, a quick reference code, or a string of numbers. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "a digital token corresponding to a financial account of the second user, the digital token comprising a scannable quick response (QR) code" Claim 1 or "the digital token comprising a scannable QR code" Claim 8 or "the digital token comprises a scannable QR code" Claim 12)
Claim 10, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 10 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 10 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 10, the method of claim 1,
• 10 ¶ 2 • wherein the payment code is a digital token. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "a payment code [] includes a digital token" Claim 8)
Claim 11, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 11 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 11 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 11, the method of claim 1,
• 11 ¶ 2 • wherein the request to fund the purchase is received after the first user attempted an initial transaction which was denied by a financial institution. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "wherein the request to fund the purchase is received after the first user attempted an initial transaction which was denied by the financial institution" Claim 1)
Claim 12, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 12 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 12 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 12 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 12, the method of claim 1,
• 12 ¶ 2 • wherein the request to fund the purchase is a funding request to at least partially fund the purchase. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "wherein the request to fund the purchase is a request to at least partially fund the purchase" Claim 7)
Claim 13, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 13 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 13 is an independent claim. The combined disclosures and teachings of BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A taken together render obvious the claimed subject matter of claim 13 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 13, a financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution, the system comprising: Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: doesn't expressly and explicitly recite a financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution, the system comprising --- however BALINDER-A: clearly discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the feature -- "[a] financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution, the system comprising" Claims 1, 12 or "a financial institution computing system of a financial institution" Claim 8); [See Remarks Below];
With respect to above-noted claimed element the above "a financial..." line limitation which is disclosed by BALINDER-A: the teachings and/or suggestions within the disclosure of BALINDER-Claims thus far relied upon does not include within its explanations the reciting explicitly and expressly of the above "a financial..." line limitation as required by the instant claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, herein relied upon are portions of the disclosure of BALINDER-A which sufficiently teaches the feature appurtenant to the claimed invention as annotated above with citation(s) to exemplary disclosures within BALINDER-A that teach and/or suggest the claimed feature. At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relied upon teachings of BALINDER-Claims by adding or substituting the feature the above "a financial..." line limitation as taught and/or suggested by BALINDER-A, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. The addition or substitution of this known feature by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have yielded predictable results that were readily foreseeable to that one person of ordinary skill in the art at that time. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of BALINDER-Claims with these aforementioned teachings of the above "a financial..." line limitation sufficiently taught, suggested, and/or disclosed in BALINDER-A because that one artisan of skill having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have had a motivation of "[o]ther substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention as expressed in the appended claims". (BALINDER-A: col. 15 lns. 15-29).
• 13 ¶ 2 • a network interface configured to communicate with a plurality of user devices via a network; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "a network interface configured to communicate with a plurality of user devices [] via a network" Claims 1, 12)
• 13 ¶ 3 • at least one memory; and Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "a memory" Claims 1, 12 or "the memory" Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12, 14-15)
• 13 ¶ 4 • at least one computing system coupled to the at least one memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one computing system, cause the at least one computing system to: Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "at least one processor coupled to the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor [] cause the at least one processor to" Claims 1-3, 5-6, 14-15 and "computing system" Claims 1, 8, 12")
• 13 ¶ 5 • receive, from a first user device, a request to fund a purchase of a first user with funds from a second user; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "receive, from a first user device, a request to fund a purchase of a first user from the merchant with funds from a second user" Claim 1)
• 13 ¶ 6 • transmit a message including the request to fund the purchase of the first user to a second user device associated with the second user, the request comprising location information; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transmit a message including the request to fund the purchase of the first user to a second user device associated with the second user, the request comprising a location [] information" Claim 1)
• 13 ¶ 7 • receive, from the second user device, an indication that the message is being viewed by the second user; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "receive, from the second user device, an indication that the message is being viewed by the second user" Claim 1)
• 13 ¶ 8 • in response to receiving the indication that the message is being viewed, (1) generate a location request for updated location information, (2) transmit the request for the updated location information to the first user device, (3) receive the updated location information from the first user device, and (4) transmit the updated location information of a current location of the first user device to the second user device; Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "in response to receiving the indication that the message is being viewed, (1) generate a request for updated location information, (2) transmit the request for updated location information to the first user device, (3) receive the updated location information from the first user device, and (4) transmit the updated location information of a current location of the first user device to the second user device" Claim 1)
• 13 ¶ 9 • upon receiving an approval from the second user device, transmit updated payment information to the first user device, wherein the updated payment information comprises a payment code including a geographical restriction such that the payment code is valid only at a location associated with the location information; and Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "upon receiving an approval from the second user device [] transmit updated payment information to the first user device" Claim 1 and "the updated transaction request including the digital token" Claim 1 and "the request comprising a location of the merchant [] the digital token comprising a [] code and further comprising a geographic restriction [] such that the digital token is valid only at the location of the merchant" Claim 1)
• 13 ¶ 10 • in response to receiving a transaction request from a merchant computing system, transmit an approval message based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user device is associated with the location information. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: doesn't expressly and explicitly recite in response to receiving a transaction request from a merchant computing system, transmit an approval message based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user device is associated with the location information --- however BALINDER-A: clearly discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the feature -- "receive an [] transaction request from the merchant point of sale system" Claim 1 and "in response to the [] transaction request from the merchant point of sale system" Claim 5 and "transmitting, by the processor, an approval message to [] the merchant" Claim 8 and "financial institution computing system 102 [] returns either a transaction confirmation [] to the POS system 112 to provide an indication to the merchant 108 as to the approval status of the funds transfer" col. 3 ln. 42 - col. 4 ln. 4 and "updated first user location information is transmitted to the second user's mobile device at 212[; t]he financial institution computing system 102 requests location information relating to the first user's mobile device and transmits the received location information to the second user's mobile device[; t]he updated first user location information lets the second user know where the first user is at the time of the contact reading the funding request message[; t]he first user's location may be used by the second user to determine that the first user is in the vicinity of the merchant 108[; t]his information may be used by the second user to determine that the first user is still seeking funding for the purchase and that the request is still valid[; f]or example, if the current location of the first user is fifty miles away from the merchant 108, the second user may choose to deny the request for funding because it is evident that the first user no longer needs the goods or services offered by the merchant 108[; t]he updated first user location is displayed to the second user along with the funding request message" col. 7 ln. 64 - col. 8 ln. 21 and "the fund request message includes current first user location information 408[; t]he current first user location information 408 is received from the first user's mobile device at 210 of method 200" col. 8 lns. 22-42 and "response options allow the second user to accept the funding request as sent by interacting with the accept button 408" col. 8 ln. 43 - col. 9 ln. 17); [See Remarks Below];
With respect to above-noted claimed element the above "in response..." line limitation which is disclosed by BALINDER-A: the teachings and/or suggestions within the disclosure of BALINDER-Claims thus far relied upon fails to mention within its writings an explicit and express recital of the above "in response..." line limitation as presented within the claim under examination. Nevertheless, herein relied upon are portions of the disclosure of BALINDER-A which sufficiently teaches the feature appurtenant to the claimed invention as annotated above with quotation(s) of exemplary disclosures within BALINDER-A that teach and/or suggest the claimed feature. At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relied upon teachings of BALINDER-Claims by adding or substituting the feature the above "in response..." line limitation as taught and/or suggested by BALINDER-A, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. The addition or substitution of this known feature by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have yielded predictable results that were readily reckonable to that one person of ordinary skill in the art at that time. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of BALINDER-Claims with these aforementioned teachings of the above "in response..." line limitation sufficiently taught, suggested, and/or disclosed in BALINDER-A because that one artisan of skill having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have had a motivation of "[o]ther substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention as expressed in the appended claims". (BALINDER-A: col. 15 lns. 15-29).
Claim 14, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 14 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 13, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 13, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 14 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 14, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one computing system is further configured to
• 14 ¶ 2 • transmit the location information relating to a location of the first user device to the second user device. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses “transmit [] location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device” Claim 2 and “by [] the [] computing system” Claims 1, 8)
Claim 15, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 15 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 15 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 14, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claim 13, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 14 and 13, BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A disclose and render obvious as previously combined the claimed subject matter of claim 15 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 15, the system of claim 14, wherein the at least one computing system is further configured to
• 15 ¶ 2 • receive a second indication from the second user device that the message was opened by the second user. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: doesn't expressly and explicitly recite receive a second indication from the second user device that the message was opened by the second user --- however BALINDER-A: clearly discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the feature -- See Prior Comment at Claim 3 Par. 2), [See Remarks after Claim 3 Par. 2 herein for previously explained rationale or reasoned explanation supporting the finding of obviousness regarding the above-identified combination];
Claim 16, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 16 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 16 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 15, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claims 14 and 13, of which the latter is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 15 and 14 and 13, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 16 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 16, the system of claim 15, wherein the at least one computing system is further configured to
• 16 ¶ 2 • transmit the updated location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transmit the updated location information of a current location of the first user device to the second user device" Claim 1 or "the at least one processor to transmit updated location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device" Claim 2; and "by [] the [] computing system" Claims 1, 8)
Claim 17, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 17 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 17 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 13, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 13, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 17 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 17, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one computing system is further configured to:
• 17 ¶ 2 • receive a funding request denial from the second user device; and Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 2)
• 17 ¶ 3 • receive a second request to fund the purchase of the first user, wherein the second request identifies a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase; and Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 3)
• 17 ¶ 4 • transmit a second message including the second request to a third user device associated with the third user. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: discloses "transmit a second message including the second request to a third user device associated with the third user" Claim 3)
Claim 18, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 18 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 18 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 17, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claim 13, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 17 and 13, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 18 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 18, the system of claim 17,
• 18 ¶ 2 • wherein the second message indicates that the second user already denied the request. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 2)
Claim 19, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 19 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 13, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 13, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 19 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 19, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one computing system is further configured to
• 19 ¶ 2 • transfer the funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with a merchant. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 7 Par. 2)
Claim 20, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 20 is rejected as being unpatentable over BALINDER-Claims and BALINDER-A. Claim 20 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 13, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 13, BALINDER-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 20 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 20, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one computing system is further configured to
• 20 ¶ 2 • schedule an automated transfer from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user. Line Comment: (BALINDER-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 8 Par. 2)
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1, a method of facilitating a payment to a merchant, the method comprising: receiving, from a first user, a request to fund a purchase of a first user from the merchant with funds from a second user; transmitting a message including the request to fund the purchase of the first user to a second user associated with the second user, the request comprising first location information; receiving, from the second user, an indication that the message is being viewed; in response to receiving the indication that the message is being viewed, receiving updated location information regarding a current location of the first user; transmitting updated payment information to the first user, the updated payment information including a payment code, the updated payment information including a payment code, the updated payment information transmitted in response to receiving an approval from the second user; receiving a transaction request from the merchant, the transaction request including the payment code, the payment code comprising a geographical restriction such that the payment code is valid only at a location associated with the first location information; and transmitting an approval message to the merchant based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user is associated with the first location information. (commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 3 -: 3, the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an indication from the second user that the message was opened by the second user. Claim 4 -: 4, the method of claim 3, further comprising transmitting the updated location information relating to the location of the first user to the second user. Claim 5 -: 5, the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a funding request denial from the second user; receiving a second request to fund the purchase of the first user, wherein the second request identifies a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase; and transmitting a second message including the second request to a third user associated with the third user. Claim 6 -: 6, the method of claim 5, wherein the second message indicates that the second user already denied the request. Claim 7 -: 7, the method of claim 1, further comprising transferring funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with the merchant. Claim 8 -: 8, the method of claim 1, further comprising scheduling a transfer from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user. Claim 9 -: 9, the method of claim 1, wherein the payment code is a code or a string of numbers. Claim 10 -: 10, the method of claim 1, wherein the payment code is a token. Claim 11 -: 11, the method of claim 1, wherein the request to fund the purchase is received after the first user attempted an initial transaction which was denied by a financial institution. Claim 12 -: 12, the method of claim 1, wherein the request to fund the purchase is a funding request to at least partially fund the purchase. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 13 -: 13, a financial institution associated with a financial institution, the system comprising: an interface configured to communicate with a plurality of users ; and at least one that stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one, cause the at least one to: receive, from a first user, a request to fund a purchase of a first user with funds from a second user; transmit a message including the request to fund the purchase of the first user to a second user associated with the second user, the request comprising location information; receive, from the second user, an indication that the message is being viewed by the second user; in response to receiving the indication that the message is being viewed, (1) generate a location request for updated location information, (2) transmit the request for the updated location information to the first user, (3) receive the updated location information from the first user, and (4) transmit the updated location information of a current location of the first user to the second user; upon receiving an approval from the second user, transmit updated payment information to the first user, wherein the updated payment information comprises a payment code including a geographical restriction such that the payment code is valid only at a location associated with the location information; and in response to receiving a transaction request from a merchant, transmit an approval message based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user is associated with the location information. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 14 -: 14, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one is further configured to transmit the location information relating to a location of the first user to the second user. Claim 15 -: 15, the system of claim 14, wherein the at least one is further configured to receive a second indication from the second user that the message was opened by the second user. Claim 16 -: 16, the system of claim 15, wherein the at least one is further configured to transmit the updated location information relating to the location of the first user to the second user. Claim 17 -: 17, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one is further configured to: receive a funding request denial from the second user; and receive a second request to fund the purchase of the first user, wherein the second request identifies a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase; and transmit a second message including the second request to a third user associated with the third user. Claim 18 -: 18, the system of claim 17, wherein the second... [id. at 6], Claim 19 -: 19, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one is further configured to transfer the funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with a merchant. Claim 20 -: 20, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one is further configured to schedule a transfer from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: systems and methods for peer-to-peer funds requests as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1 and 13 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 13.
Claim 1 (as amended): Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 1 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "a computing system", "first user device", "the computing system", and "second user device". However, independent claim 1 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "a computing system", "first user device", "the computing system", and "second user device" of independent claim 1 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method of facilitating a … merchant, the method comprising", "receiving, by a computing system … from a second user", "transmitting, by the computing system, … comprising first location information", "receiving, by the computing system … message is being viewed", "in response to receiving the … the first user device", "transmitting, by the computing system, … the second user device", "receiving, by the computing system, … first location information; and" and "transmitting, by the computing system, … the first location information") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 13 (as amended): Materially pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 13 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computing system", "network interface", "user devices", "via a network", "at least one memory", "first user device", and "second user device". However, independent claim 13 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computing system", "network interface", "user devices", "via a network", "at least one memory", "first user device", and "second user device" of independent claim 13 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a financial institution computing system … institution, the system comprising", "a network interface configured to … devices via a network", "at least one memory; and", "at least one computing system … one computing system to", "receive, from a first user … from a second user", "transmit a message including the … request comprising location information", "receive, from the second user … by the second user", "in response to receiving the … the second user device", "upon receiving an approval from … the location information; and" and "in response to receiving a … with the location information") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a network interface configured to … devices via a network", "at least one computing system … one computing system to" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a network interface configured to … devices via a network", "at least one computing system … one computing system to", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (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), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and 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., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 13 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1 and 13 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 3-12 and 14-20 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 17: Dependent claims 5 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "third user device" of dependent claims 5 and 17 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 5 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 8 and 20: Dependent claims 8 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "automated transfer" of dependent claims 8 and 20 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 8 and 20 are ineligible.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "barcode", and "quick reference code" of dependent claim 9 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "digital token" of dependent claim 10 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 3: Dependent claim 3 adds an additional method step of "receiving, by the computing system, an indication from the second user device that the message was opened by the second user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 3 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4: Dependent claim 4 adds an additional method step of "transmitting, by the computing system, the updated location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 4 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds an additional method step of "receiving, by the computing system, a funding request denial from the second user device", "receiving, by the computing system, a second request to fund the purchase of the … a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase; and", "transmitting, by the computing system, a second message including the second request to a third user device associated with the third user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 5 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Claims 6 and 18: Dependent claims 6 and 18 add an additional method step of "wherein the second message indicates that the second user already denied the request". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 6 and 18 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. the noted recited step). Dependent claims 6 and 18 further do not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the second message indicates that the second user already denied the request" (claim 6) step and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 6 and 18 are ineligible.
Claim 7: Dependent claim 7 adds an additional method step of "transferring funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with the merchant". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 7 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. the noted recited step). Dependent claim 7 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "transferring funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with the merchant" step and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8: Dependent claim 8 adds additional method steps of "scheduling, by the computing system, an automated transfer from a first account associated with … based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 8 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 adds an additional method step of "wherein the payment code is a barcode, a quick reference code, or a string of numbers". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 9 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 adds an additional method step of "wherein the payment code is a digital token". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 10 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 adds an additional method step of "wherein the request to fund the purchase is received after the first user attempted an initial transaction which was denied by a financial institution". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 11 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. the noted recited step). Dependent claim 11 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the request to fund the purchase is received after the first user attempted an initial transaction which was denied by a financial institution" step and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds an additional method step of "wherein the request to fund the purchase is a funding request to at least partially fund the purchase". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 12 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. the noted recited step). Dependent claim 12 further does not specify any particular machine element(s) for the "wherein the request to fund the purchase is a funding request to at least partially fund the purchase" step and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step may be manually performed by a human only which also does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 14: Dependent claim 14 adds an additional method step of "transmit the location information relating to a location of the first user device to the second user device". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 14 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15: Dependent claim 15 adds an additional method step of "receive a second indication from the second user device that the message was opened by the second user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 15 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16: Dependent claim 16 adds an additional method step of "transmit the updated location information relating to the location of the first user device to the second user device". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 16 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17: Dependent claim 17 adds an additional method step of "receive a funding request denial from the second user device; and", "receive a second request to fund the purchase of the first user, wherein the … a third user as a source of funds to fund the purchase; and", "transmit a second message including the second request to a third user device associated with the third user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 17 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 19: Dependent claim 19 adds an additional method step of "transfer the funds from a first account associated with the second user into a second account associated with a merchant". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 19 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. the noted recited step). No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20: Dependent claim 20 adds additional method steps of "schedule an automated transfer from a first account associated with the first user to … based on a repayment agreement between the first user and the second user". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 20 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 20 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted March 30, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed December 30, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the December 30, 2025 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the non-statutory double patenting rejections are moot and overcome in view of the amendments presented herein. []
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, and/or add significantly more to any alleged abstract idea.
'The claims, at least as amended, do not represent an abstract idea, but instead relate to a technical solution for facilitating a peer-to-peer funds request for facilitating a payment to a merchant. As claimed, a specific technical process implemented on mobile devices for facilitating the peer-to-peer funds request in an efficient manner for both parties, as well as providing secure transactions, is provided. For example, paragraph [0028] of the as-filed application describes "[t]he financial institution computing system 102 receives an indication from the second user's mobile device. The indication informs the financial institution computing system 102 that the second user is viewing the funding request message. In response to receiving the indication at 210, the updated first user location information is transmitted to the second user's mobile device at 212.... The updated first user location information lets the second user know where the first user is at the time of the contact reading the funding request message. The first user's location may be used by the second user to determine that the first user is in the vicinity of the merchant 108. This information may be used by the second user to determine that the first user is still seeking funding for the purchase and that the request is still valid. For example, if the current location of the first user is fifty miles away from the merchant 108, the second user may choose to deny the request for funding because it is evident that the first user no longer needs the goods or services offered by the merchant 108. The updated first user location is displayed to the second user along with the funding request message." Further, paragraph [0032] of the as-filed application describes "[i]f the second user approved the funding request at 214, updated payment information is transmitted at 220. The updated payment information is transmitted from the financial institution computing system 102 to the first user's mobile device. The updated payment information includes a payment code...the payment code may be a barcode, a QR code, a string of numbers, or the like, that can be relayed to the merchant POS system 112 to complete the transaction. In other arrangements, the payment code is a digital token or file that can be transmitted to the merchant POS system 112 from the first user's mobile device (e.g., via Bluetooth«, near field communication, radio frequency identification, WiFI, ZigBee«, etc.). The payment code may be a limited use payment code (e.g., a one-time use payment code). In some arrangements, the payment code includes a geographic restriction (e.g., the payment code is only valid in certain geography defined by the second user)."
'Amended independent claim 1 reflects at least the above-recited technical improvements by reciting, in part, "transmitting, by the computing system, updated payment information to the first user device, the updated payment information including a payment code, the updated payment information transmitted in response to receiving an approval from the second user device," "receiving, by the computing system, a transaction request from the merchant, the transaction request including the payment code, the payment code comprising a geographical restriction such that the payment code is valid only at a location associated with the first location information," and "transmitting, by the computing system, an approval message to the merchant based on a confirmation that the current location of the first user device is associated with the first location information," among other features.
"At least these features of claim 1, individually or in combination, provide at least the technical improvements described above that incorporates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application thereof and/or amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
"[T]he features of claim 13 provide at least the technical improvements described above that incorporate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application thereof and/or amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 1."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 7-10).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments submitted March 30, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 7-10 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held that "communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network" is itself an abstract idea. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d at 108516: "It is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea--namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. [] We therefore continue our analysis to determine whether the focus of claim 1, as a whole, is the abstract idea. As explained below, we conclude that it is." ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 108512 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: i. Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); v. Affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed, Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910-11, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1505-06 (Fed. Cir. 2017); vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018); viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. 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). In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). 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, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims neither recite nor require "providing secure transaction[]". The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Regarding prior art anticipation rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the Applicant's arguments submitted March 30, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed December 30, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered and are persuasive.
• The Applicant argued:
"[C]laim 1 as amended recites features similar to those presented in claim 13. Applicant respectfully submits that Williams does not disclose various features of amended claim 1. [] Williams does not anticipate, nor render obvious, the rejection of claim 1, which includes features similar to those presented in claim 13.
"[I]ndependent claim 1 is patentable over Williams. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], p. 11).
The above-quoted arguments are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20120171990 A1 by Williams; Michael et al. discloses Systems and Methods to Restrict Payment Transaction;. See e.g., Abstract: “Systems and methods are provided to selectively restrict payment transactions. In one aspect, a system includes: a data storage facility to store restriction data in association with a phone number; and an interchange coupled with the data storage facility. The interchange includes a common format processor and a plurality of converters to interface with mobile controllers. The converters are configured to communicate with the controllers in different formats and to communicate with the common format processor in a common format. In response to a payment request identifying the phone number and a merchant, the common format processor determines whether to reject the payment request based at least in part on the restriction data and the identity of the merchant. If the request is not rejected, the common format processor uses one of the converters to communicate with a telephonic apparatus at the phone number to confirm the payment request.”
USPGPub No. US 20110055080 A1 by Ahlers; Rebecca et al. discloses System, Program Product, and Method for Debit Card and Checking Account Autodraw.
USPGPub No. US 20140279097 A1 by Alshobaki; Ziad et al. discloses Purchasing Method with Funding Source Selection.
USPGPub No. US 20090177563 A1 by Bernstein; Kathi L. et al. discloses AUTHORIZATION REFRESH SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20040230535 A1 by Binder, Philip et al. discloses Method and system for conducting off-line and on-line pre-authorized payment transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20160132875 A1 by Blanco; Ignacio Carlos et al. discloses ENHANCEMENT OF MOBILE DEVICE INITIATED TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20150254699 A1 by Bondesen; Laura Corinne et al. discloses PROVIDING OFFERS ASSOCIATED WITH PAYMENT CREDENTIALS IN DIGITAL WALLETS.
USPAT No. US 9741051 B2 to Carpenter; Andrew et al. discloses Tokenization and third-party interaction.
USPGPub No. US 20140351130 A1 by Cheek; Paul Raynor et al. discloses Multi-User Funding Sources.
USPAT No. US 8924246 B1 to Chen; Jeffrey et al. discloses Systems and methods for mobile payments.
USPGPub No. US 20150112781 A1 by Clark; Kyle P. et al. discloses Method and System for Processing of a Real-Time Rebate at Transaction Authorization.
USPAT No. US 8639621 B1 to Ellis; Stephen M. et al. discloses System and method for a mobile wallet.
USPAT No. US 9691058 B2 to Epler; Michael Raymond et al. discloses Automated budgeted transfer process for linked accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20150324768 A1 by Filter; Trevor et al. discloses Systems and Methods for Managing Prepaid Cards in a Digital Wallet, including Transferring Value from Prepaid Cards and Managing User Selected Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20130262309 A1 by Gadotti; Alessandro discloses Method and System for Secure Mobile Payment.
USPGPub No. US 20140089171 A1 by Gandhi; Saumil Ashvin discloses INSTANTANEOUS MULTI-CAST FUNDING AT POINT OF SALE.
USPGPub No. US 20140074724 A1 by GORDON; Peter et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REAL-TIME ACCOUNT ACCESS.
USPGPub No. US 20110270748 A1 by GRAHAM, III; Donald H. et al. discloses METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR A FINANCIAL DOCUMENT CLEARINGHOUSE AND SECURE DELIVERY NETWORK.
USPAT No. US 8750901 B1 to Gupta; Diwakar et al. discloses Location aware requests.
USPGPub No. US 20130166332 A1 by Hammad; Ayman discloses MOBILE WALLET STORE AND SERVICE INJECTION PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20120209749 A1 by Hammad; Ayman et al. discloses SNAP MOBILE PAYMENT APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20140058855 A1 by Hussein; Atif et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MOBILE AND SOCIAL CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20140337175 A1 by Katzin; Edward et al. discloses Universal Electronic Payment Apparatuses, Methods and Systems.
USPGPub No. US 20120303425 A1 by Katzin; Edward et al. discloses MERCHANT-CONSUMER BRIDGING PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20120158589 A1 by Katzin; Edward et al. discloses Social Media Payment Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems.
USPGPub No. US 20120011063 A1 by Killian; Patrick et al. discloses VIRTUAL WALLET ACCOUNT WITH AUTOMATIC-LOADING.
USPGPub No. US 20130018777 A1 by Klein; Candace S. discloses SYSTEMS, METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SOCIAL NETWORK-BASED LENDING.
USPGPub No. US 20130006848 A1 by Kuttuva; Avinash discloses METHOD OF VIRTUAL TRANSACTION USING MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES OR FIXED ELECTRONIC DEVICES OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH, FOR GLOBAL COMMERCIAL OR NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
USPGPub No. US 20020032602 A1 by Lanzillo, Kenneth F. JR. et al. discloses Recipient selection and message delivery system and method.
USPGPub No. US 20140108254 A1 by Lee; Willis discloses TRAVEL ACCOUNT.
USPGPub No. US 20120284130 A1 by Lewis; Scott et al. discloses BARCODE CHECKOUT AT POINT OF SALE.
USPGPub No. US 20120078751 A1 by MacPhail; William et al. discloses Mobile device point of sale transaction system.
USPGPub No. US 20140379576 A1 by Marx; Joseph A. et al. discloses TRANSACTION APPROVAL FOR SHARED PAYMENT ACCOUNT.
USPGPub No. US 20130073365 A1 by McCarthy; John F. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAKING A PAYMENT USING A WIRELESS DEVICE.
USPAT No. US 7909243 B2 to Merkow; Mark et al. discloses System and method for completing a secure financial transaction using a wireless communications device.
USPGPub No. US 20130185167 A1 by Mestre; Patrick et al. discloses FINANCIAL TRANSACTION METHOD AND SYSTEM HAVING AN UPDATE MECHANISM.
USPGPub No. US 20130060679 A1 by Oskolkov; Ilya et al. discloses THIRD-PARTY PAYMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
USPGPub No. US 20140081783 A1 by Paranjape; Jagadish Bhalchandra et al. discloses Push Payment Processor.
USPGPub No. US 20110106674 A1 by Perlman; Jeffrey William discloses Optimizing Transaction Scenarios With Automated Decision Making.
USPGPub No. US 20120253852 A1 by Pourfallah; Stacy S. et al. discloses RESTRICTED-USE ACCOUNT PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20120239417 A1 by Pourfallah; Stacy S. et al. discloses HEALTHCARE WALLET PAYMENT PROCESSING APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20140351126 A1 by Priebatsch; Seth discloses SECURE SYNCHRONIZATION OF PAYMENT ACCOUNTS TO THIRD-PARTY APPLICATIONS OR WEBSITES.
USPAT No. US 8838501 B1 to Priebatsch; Seth discloses Methods and systems for permissions management.
USPGPub No. US 20150154588 A1 by Purves; Thomas et al. discloses Reversed User Account Generation Apparatuses, Methods and Systems.
USPGPub No. US 20140136352 A1 by Ramakrishna; Venkatraman et al. discloses Social Network-Assisted Electronic Payments.
USPGPub No. US 20160140555 A1 by Scipioni; German discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING SUGGESTIONS AND ENFORCING TRANSACTION RESTRICTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20170017958 A1 by SCOTT; Stephen James et al. discloses SECURE PROCESSING OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS.
USPGPub No. US 20160012465 A1 by Sharp; Jeffrey A. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING, RECEIVING, AND USING FUNDS OR CREDITS AND APPARATUS THEREOF.
USPGPub No. US 20140019352 A1 by Shrivastava; Abhinav discloses MULTI-PURPOSE VIRTUAL CARD TRANSACTION APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20150178693 A1 by Solis; Eric A. discloses FINANCIAL SERVICES ECOSYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20140351072 A1 by Wieler; Bobby et al. discloses SPLIT TENDER IN A PREPAID ARCHITECTURE.
USPGPub No. US 20120254021 A1 by Wohied; Abdul Usman et al. discloses FRIENDLY FUNDING SOURCE.
USPGPub No. US 20120185317 A1 by Wong; Catherine A. discloses MOBILE BARCODE GENERATION AND PAYMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20130073459 A1 by Zacarias; Arturo M. et al. discloses DIGITAL EXCHANGE AND MOBILE WALLET FOR DIGITAL CURRENCY.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 04/10/2026
Prosecution Insights