DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 11 September 2025.
The applicant's claim for benefit of as a 371 of PCT/KR2022/001141 (filed 21 January 2022) and as a foreign application KR10-2021-0008733, (filed 21 Jan 2021) has been received and acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 9, 13, 14 and 16 addition of Claim 16 and cancellation of Claims 2-8, 10-12, and 15 have been received and are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 9, 13, 14 and 16 are pending.
Priority
As previously noted, receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that no corresponding translation of the certified copy of the foreign application has been filed. As such, though priority is acknowledged, it has not been perfected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner withdraws the objections to the Abstract and the Claim Objections in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Examiner withdraws the prior art rejections in view of the amendments (see previous Claim Objections).
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: That the newly amended claim language results in a ‘functionality integrates any identified abstract idea into a practical application…. “improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field”…particularity of application of the identified abstract idea…..particularity of the solution recited in the currently pending claims makes clear that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any asserted abstract idea….provides system -level recovery and correction processes… thereby solving a problem in distributed computing … by providing reliable synchronization between multiple systems and preventing errors in balance deductions…this provides an improvement – faster completion of a secure balance transfer operation—to a technical field… Examiner has already acknowledged that some of the claimed functionality “[overcomes] the prior art, thus belying the Examiner’s assertion of the conventionality….as in Enfish, the particularity of the solution recited in the claims makes clear that the claims are “directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate”, not to an abstract financial practice… with respect to Claim 9… functionality provides a computer-implemented technical process that improves reliability and integrity of a distributed system by deterring unauthorized modification or spoofing of instructions… enhances computer security…” Applicant also references Ancora as support that the Federal Circuit recognized that improving security can be a non-abstract computer functionality improvement. (Applicant’s response, pg. 12-15)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below and previously, the instant claims recite generic computing elements (at a high level of generality) to solve a business challenge. Per the Specification the recited invention:
The present invention relates to a financial service provision system and a
simple payment company server therefor, and more particularly, to a financial service provision system in which a prepaid electronic payment means method and a comprehensive securities account method are linked, and a simple payment company server therefor. (Specification, L5-10, pg. 1)
The Specification further describes the “Technical Problem” as:
An embodiment of the present invention provides a financial service provision system in which a prepaid electronic payment means method and a comprehensive securities account method are linked to each other, and a simple payment company server therefor.
Meanwhile, other objects not specified in the present invention may be
10 additionally considered within the scope that can be easily inferred from the following detailed description and effects thereof. (Specification, L5-11, pg. 3)
In other words, the problem being addressed by the invention is related to ‘financial service provision’ – a business challenge- not a technological problem. The ‘recovery and correction processes’ referenced by Applicant is for “recovering financial balances’ (E.g. Specification L10-14, pg. 5; L8-13, pg. 39; ) Using technology to address a business problem is not an improvement to the technology; rather it is apply-it (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Further novelty is not dispositive of subject matter eligibility; a novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Enfish and Ancora are, therefore, not analogous to the instant recited claims. Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
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, 9, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards the systems and server/apparatus of providing a financial service of attracting funds from customer-linked accounts to manage customer financial company accounts. In the instant case, Claims 1, 9, 13 and 16 are directed to a system. Claims 14 are directed to a server/apparatus.
(2a) Prong 1: Provision of financial services including funds transfer and account management is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
Claim 1 (currently amended): A financial service provision … for providing a financial service of attracting funds from customer-linked accounts to manage customer financial company accounts, the financial service provision … comprising:
a simple payment company… that provides a simple payment service, the simple payment company … including;
a first parent account … including a withdrawal firm parent account, a collection parent account, and a deposit firm parent account,
a first balance deduction processing … that remits funds to a customer- linked account usinq a bank firm … and that reduces a balance of a customer financial company account usinq a securities firm … when a customer requests a balance deduction within a predetermined usaqe limit, wherein the first balance deduction processing … :
generates balance deduction request-related messages,
executes the bank firm … based on a first balance deduction request-related messaqe to transfer funds from the deposit firm parent account to the customer-linked account,
records a first request in a bank firm-request log based on the first balance deduction request-related message,
… a funds transfer processinq result based on execution of the bank firm …,
reflects the funds transfer processinq result in the bank firm-request log,
searches for a failed request for which a processinq result is recorded as failure in the bank firm-request loq,
performs a recovery process to recover a deducted balance of the customer financial company account for the failed request,
searches for a non-reflected request for which no processinq result is reflected in the bank firm-request loq,
confirms whether a transfer of funds by the bank firm … is performed for the non-reflected request,
changes a state of the non-reflected request to a success state when the transfer of funds for the non-reflected request is confirmed,
changes the state of the non-reflected request to a failure state when the transfer of funds for the non-reflected request is not confirmed,
executes the securities firm … based on a second balance deduction request-related messaqe to reduce the balance of the customer financial company account through a transfer transaction between a financial company parent account and the customer financial company account,
records a second request in a securities firm-request loq based on the second balance deduction request-related message,
… a balance deduction processinq result based on execution of the securities firm …, and
reflects the balance deduction processinq result in the securities firm-request loq, and
a second balance deduction processing … that … processing of transferrinq a payment instruction to a financial company… to reduce the balance of the customer financial company account when the customer requests a balance deduction exceeding the predetermined usage limit;
the financial company…, which that includes a second parent account … that comprises the financial company parent account including one or more second parent accounts;
the bank firm…, which that manages a transfer of funds between the customer-linked account and the first parent account … or between a customer- designated account designated by a customer and the first parent account …; and
the securities firm …, which manages transfer of funds between the second parent account … and the customer financial company account,
wherein, the balance deduction within the predetermined usage limit is processed through the bank firm … and the securities firm …, and
wherein the balance deduction exceedinq the predetermined usaqe limit is processed through the payment instruction to the financial company … according to a transaction amount.
Claim 9 (currently amended): A financial service provision… comprisinq:
a simple payment company… that provides a simple payment service, the simple payment company… includinq:
a first parent account system includinq a withdrawal firm parent account, a collection parent account, and a deposit firm parent account,
a first balance deduction processing … that remits funds to a customer- linked account usinq a bank firm … and that reduces a balance of a customer financial company account usinq a securities firm … when a customer requests a balance deduction within a predetermined usage limit, and
a second balance deduction processing … that performs processing of transferrinq a payment instruction to a financial company … to reduce the balance of the customer financial company account when the customer requests a balance deduction exceeding the predetermined usage limit, wherein the second balance deduction processing …:
generates a balance deduction request-related message,
generates … signature information using a certificate used for the simple payment service,
requests an account remittance by transferring the payment instruction including the balance deduction request-related message and the… signature information to the financial company…,
records a request in a log based on the payment instruction,
… a remittance result from an external financial network via the financial company…,
reflects the remittance result in the loq,
searches for a non-reflected request for which no remittance result is reflected in the loq,
confirms whether the account remittance is performed throuqh the external financial network by the financial company server for the non- reflected request,
changes a state of the non-reflected request to a success state when performance of the account remittance is confirmed, and
changes the state of the non-reflected request to a failure state when performance of the account remittance is not confirmed; and
the financial company …, which includes a second parent account … that comprises a financial company parent account, wherein the financial company … confirms the payment instruction using the … signature information and performs the account remittance through the external financial …;
the bank firm …, which manaqes transfer of funds between the customer- linked account and the first parent account …; and
the securities firm…, which manages transfer of funds between the second parent account … and the customer financial company account,
wherein the balance deduction within the predetermined usage limit is processed through the bank firm … and the securities firm …, and
wherein the balance deduction exceedinq the predetermined usaqe limit is processed throuqh the payment instruction to the financial company … accordinq to a transaction amount.
Claim 14 (currently amended): A simple payment company… comprising:
a first parent account… including a withdrawal firm parent account, a collection parent account, and a deposit firm parent account;
a first balance deduction processing… that remits funds to a process is performed through a bank firm… that manages a transfer of funds between the customer-linked account usinq a bank firm … and that reduces a balance of a customer financial company account usinq and the first parent account … or a transfer of funds between a customer-designated account designated by the customer and the first parent account …, and a securities firm …, wherein the first balance deduction processing unit:
generates balance deduction request-related messages,
executes the bank firm … based on a first balance deduction request- related messaqe to transfer funds from the deposit firm parent account to the customer-linked account,
records a first request in a bank firm-request log based on the first balance deduction request-related messaqe,
… a funds transfer processinq result based on execution of the bank firm system,
reflects the funds transfer processinq result in the bank firm-request loq,
searches for a failed request for which a processinq result is recorded as failure in the bank firm-request loq,
performs a recovery process to recover a deducted balance of the customer financial company account for the failed request,
executes the securities firm … based on a second balance deduction request-related messaqe to reduce the balance of the customer financial company account through a transfer transaction between a financial company parent account and the customer financial company account,
records a second request in a securities firm-request loq based on the second balance deduction request-related messaqe,
… a balance deduction processinq result based on execution of the securities firm …, and
reflects the balance deduction processinq result in the securities firm- request loq; and
a second balance deduction processing… that performs processinq of transferrinq a payment instruction to a financial company… to reduce the balance of the customer financial company account.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of [Claim 1] … provides… including…including.. remits… reduces… generates…executes… records… reflects… searches.. performs… searches… confirms…changes…changes… executes…records… performs… includes… manages… manages… [Claim 9] …provides.. including… including… remits… reduces… performs… generates… generates…requests… records… reflects… searches… confirms… changes… changes… includes… confirms… manages… manages… [Claim 14] …including.. remits… manages.. reduces…generates…executes… records… reflects… searches.. performs… executes… records… reflects… performs…., do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receives… receives… includes/including (i.e. storing)) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1, 9, 13 and 16 are directed to a system. Claims 14 are directed to a server/apparatus.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (system, server, instruction, network, unit ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, Pg. 52-55 …module … for example, unit, logic, logical block, component, or circuit… server …may include a communication unit, a processor, and a memory…may be a terminal, such as computer, in which software or application are install… communications unit…connected to the processor and memory to transmit and receive data…. internal bus and an external bus… an element that connects the server and an external device… an interface.. “processor” may be a data processing device implemented in hardware…codes and instruction… a data processing unit implemented in hardware may include a microprocessor, a central processing unit, a processor core, a multi-core processor, a multiprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA).…. computer readable code (e.g., software)… memory may include one or more of a volatile memory, a nonvolatile memory, and a random access memory (RAM), a flash memory, a hard disk drive, and an optical disk drive. The memory stores the set of instructions (e.g., software or applications) that run the server. The set of instructions that run the server are executed by the processor… implemented by hardware components, software components, and/or combinations of hardware components and software components…. may be implemented using general purpose computers or special purpose computers …. software may include computer programs, codes, instructions, or a combination of one or more thereof,… may be implemented in a
form of program commands that may be executed through various computer means and may be recorded in a computer-readable recording medium…).
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims (2-13) introduces the additional elements of: units processing data… ((Claim 13)… unit…unit …. This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these element(s) (system, server, instruction, network, unit ) amount(s) to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, Pg. 52-55 module … for example, unit, logic, logical block, component, or circuit… server …… implemented by hardware components, software components, and/or combinations of hardware components and software components…. may be implemented using general purpose computers or special purpose computers …. software may include computer programs, codes, instructions, or a combination of one or more thereof,… may be implemented in a form of program commands that may be executed through various computer means and may be recorded in a computer-readable recording medium…)
Therefore, Claims 1, 9, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00am - 5:00 pm EST.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691