DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 November 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 22. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18 were canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-22 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 03 November 2025 and 18 December 2025 with respect to:
objection to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-22, and
rejections of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-22 under U.S.C. § 112(b)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
As an initial note: Supplemental amendment file on 18 December 2025 was filed to correct language in claim 1 that should have been added in amendment filed 03 November 2025.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections. However, amendments are not totally effective. See new objections to the specification, new claim objections, and § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections below.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application filed on 07 September 2023 is given priority from 07 September 2023.
Specification
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to support the subject matter set forth in the claims. The specification, as originally filed does not provide support for the invention as now claimed.
The test to be applied under the written description portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of later claimed subject matter. Vas-Cat, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1991), reh'rg denied (.Fed. Cir. July 8, 1991) and reh'rg, en banc, denied (Fed. Cir. July 29, 1991).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 include the representative preamble:
A system for collecting and storing physical transfer records and digital transfer records for data record association of the physical transfer records and digital transfer records, the system comprising.
However, the specification does not provide a written description disclosure to support “physical transfer records”. Examiner notes that the instant specification does cite physical records at [0002] and [0033].
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-22 are objected to because much of the terminology is so broad it is not clear what the Applicant is trying to claim. For example: Examiner can not understand what a resource transfer is. As best can be determined, a resource transfer is a data transfer [0063] and may refer to a money transfer in that it is “from an account”. However, the Applicant’s specification is devoid of terms such as money, cash, capital or currency.
The representative limitation of claim 1:
cause an execution of the resource transfer associated with the user, wherein the resource transfer comprises a resource transfer in exchange for a transfer item comprising a good or service, wherein an executed data transfer record is created for the resource transfer comprising data indicating a resource transfer amount, a receiving user, and a resource transfer timestamp;
is vague and indefinite in that it is not clear what the Applicant means to convey. Perhaps the Applicant means to convey something similar to:
transferring capital in exchange for an item, and
creating an exchange record comprising an amount of capital exchanged, a receiving party and a timestamp;
However, the phrase “for a transfer item comprising a good or service” holds limited patentable weight in that the item is not referenced in the remainer of the claim. At best, “for a transfer item comprising a good or service” is merely a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In the representative preamble:
A system for collecting and storing physical transfer records and digital transfer records for data record association of the physical transfer records and digital transfer records, the system comprising.
Examiner finds no evidence of “physical transfer records”. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should identify where in the specification the physical transfer records is disclosed, or otherwise, cancel such matter from the claims.
In the representative limitation:
causing a prompt to be sent to the end-point device associated with the user upon determination of a deficiency of the detailed data transfer record, wherein the prompt is a request to provide information to create or update the detailed data transfer record for the resource transfer;
Examiner finds no evidence of “deficiency” in the Applicant’s specification. Applicant specification does recite:
[0072] Referring now to optional Block 208 of Figure 2, the method includes causing a prompt to be sent to the end-point device associated with the user in an instance in which the detailed data transfer record is incomplete. A detailed data transfer record may be incomplete in an instance in which no detailed data transfer record is received or stored (e.g., a receiving entity or user does not send the detailed data transfer), or an instance in which the detailed data transfer record received is deficient in some way (e.g., the data transfer does not match the data transfer value, one or more transfer items are not included in the detailed data transfer record, etc.).(emphasis added)
However, claim does not recite “matching/ comparing the data transfer to the data transfer value”. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should identify where in the specification determination of a deficiency of the detailed data transfer record is disclosed, or otherwise, cancel such matter from the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, in the representative limitation:
causing a prompt to be sent to the end-point device associated with the user upon determination of a deficiency of the detailed data transfer record, wherein the prompt is a request to provide information to create or update the detailed data transfer record for the resource transfer;
The term “deficiency” is a subjective term and as such, renders the claim as indefinite. As per MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology [R-07.2022]
IV. SUBJECTIVE TERMS
When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of the term, similar to the analysis for a term of degree. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase “unobtrusive manner” indefinite because the specification did not “provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary”)
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Citing the representative limitation:
causing a prompt to be sent to the end-point device associated with the user upon determination of a deficiency of the detailed data transfer record, wherein the prompt is a request to provide information to create or update the detailed data transfer record for the resource transfer;
the omitted steps include determining a deficiency of the detailed data transfer record.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that because particular claims are rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time (See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP § 2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though the claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 19-22 are rejected by way of dependency on a rejected independent claim.
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-22, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
The closest prior art is Bhos et al (US Pub. No. 20230206224 A1).
Bhos teaches a computer-implemented method which includes receiving, by a provider computing system associated with an accounts provider, a customer request via a mobile wallet application on a mobile device associate with a customer [0005]. The customer request includes a request for a currency transfer from a mobile wallet held by the customer to a recipient.
Bhos teaches systems and methods for currency transfer which occur via a distributed ledger currency rail [0036]. The distributed ledger allows each of the provider and the partner provider to keep a record of the currency transfer, allowing, for example, comparison of the two records to verify the accuracy of the transaction. The distributed ledger allows both the provider and the partner provider to keep a known record of the transfer for compliance and security purposes [Id.].
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Zhu: “POINT-TO-POINT (P2P)-BASED DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND SYSTEM, COMPUTING DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM”, (US Pub. No. 20230245118 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692