DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 01/09/2026.
Claims 2, 11-20 are previously withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 4 and 5 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10 and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 starting on page 15 of the response. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims perform a transaction which is a fundamental economic practice.
Applicant further argues step 2A prong 2 starting on page 17 of the response. Applicant argues the claims are directed to a practice application, specifically that the claims include a improvement to the function of electronic payment systems and includes a device locked cryptographically enforces transaction flow.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the transaction itself if abstract, the use of the user device represents applying the expectation to a computer environment. And the encoding of the payment amount with a OTPIN represents mere instruction to apply the exception as the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Applicant further argues the claims represent an inventive concept as an ordered combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as discussed above the encoding of the payment amount with a OTPIN represents mere instruction to apply the exception as the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection, in view of the amendments the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
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, 3-10 and 21 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.
In the instant case, claims 1 and 21 are directed to a system. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed
Claim 1 recites “processing a payment.” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 recites
A system for processing payments comprising: a user device of a user, the user device includes a processor, memory, and a phone number; a network, the user device is configured to communicate over the network;
a payment processor with a processor and memory in communication with the user device over the network;
a client application installed on the user device of the user, the client application is configured to process the payments from the user through the payment processor over the network, wherein the client application on the user device is configured to:
create a mobile account of the user with the payment processor, where the mobile account of the user device is linked with the phone number of the user device;
process a payment from the mobile account of the user by utilizing the phone number of the user device for authenticating the payment;
wherein the client application is configured to process the payments from the mobile account of the user by generating a PIN on the user device of the user;
wherein the payment processed from the mobile account of the user can only be initiated from the user device of the user as the phone number of the user device is linked to the mobile account of the user and is used to authenticate the payment;
wherein the PIN is generated by the user entering a payment amount and encoding the payment amount with an expiring OTPIN;
wherein, when the PIN is generated, the payment amount is deducted from funds of the mobile account and the PIN is sent to the payment processor before displaying it to the user on the client application; and
wherein the expiring OTPIN is encoded using a key downloaded from the payment processor over the network which is derived from the phone number of the user device of the user and is therefore unique to the user device of the user.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “a user device of a user, the user device includes a processor, memory, and a phone number; a network, the user device is configured to communicate over the network”, “a payment processor with a processor and memory in communication with the user device over the network”, “a client application installed on the user device of the user, the client application is configured … over the network, wherein the client application on the user device is configured to”, “wherein, when the PIN is generated…”, “wherein the expiring OTPIN is encoded using a key downloaded from the payment processor over the network which is derived from the phone number of the user device of the user and is therefore unique to the user device of the user.” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of pay request processing.
Hence, claim 1 not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-10 recite additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 3 recite “wherein the client application is configured to process the payments from the …account of the user and includes ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element of “…mobile…”, “always displaying a balance of the funds of the user in real time on the user device of the user” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Claims 6 recite “wherein, when the user provides the PIN generated by the client application and the phone number of … of the user to a merchant, and the merchant sends the PIN and the phone number to the payment processor … along with an item price…”, “the decoded payment amount is equal to the payment amount”, “the OTPIN has not expired”, “funds of the payment amount were deducted from the mobile account of the user” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element of “…of the user device… over the network along…”, “…the user device …”, and “the PIN was generated on the user device of the user that wrote the PIN via the phone number of the user device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Claims 7 recite “wherein, when the merchant submits a file of an approved transaction … to the payment processor, the payment processor is configured to identify if the approved transaction is valid and credit the merchant the payment amount minus any transaction processing fees.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element of “…via an API call …”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites “wherein, the payment processor includes a bank, the bank is configured to hold funds of the user for use in the system, the bank is also configured to move funds of the user in and out of the system over the network through the client application by either a funds transfer from a different bank account, using common methods including …by depositing a check, by charging a credit or debit card, or by paying cash to an agent of the payment processor.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element of “…ACH, RTP, or Fedwire, …”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Claims 9 recite the additional element of “wherein the user device is a mobile phone assigned with the phone number.”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Claims 10 recite “the payments processed from the mobile account of the user are micropayments”, “the system for processing payments is configured to process ten million micropayment transactions in under 10 seconds”, “the payment processor authenticates the payment by the user without requiring entry of personal information of the user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element of “PIN validation by the payment processor takes less than 400 milliseconds”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior art Rejection
After further search and consideration the prior art rejection is withdrawn. Regarding claim 1 the prior art does not teach “wherein the PIN is generated by the user entering a payment amount and encoding the payment amount with an expiring OTPIN; wherein, when the PIN is generated, the payment amount is deducted from funds of the mobile account and the PIN is sent to the payment processor before displaying it to the user on the client application; and wherein the expiring OTPIN is encoded using a key downloaded from the payment processor over the network which is derived from the phone number of the user device of the user and is therefore unique to the user device of the user.” And “the payments processed from the mobile account of the user are micropayments; PIN validation by the payment processor takes less than 400 milliseconds; the system for processing payments is configured to process ten million micropayment transactions in under 10 seconds; and the payment processor authenticates the payment by the user without requiring entry of personal information of the user.”
Regarding claim 21 the prior art does not teach: “the payments processed from the mobile account of the user are micropayments; PIN validation by the payment processor takes less than 400 milliseconds; the system for processing payments is configured to process ten million micropayment transactions in under 10 seconds; and the payment processor authenticates the payment by the user without requiring entry of personal information of the user.”
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Bazaz (US 2014/0379563 A1) Teaches Methods for web-initiated phone payments.
Garcia Ruano (US 2006/0224470 A1) Teaches Digital mobile telephone transactions.
Conclusion
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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights