DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed on 1/13/2026 entering claims amendment filed on 12/15/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims, 1, 11 and 20 are amended. Claim 10 is canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims are objected because of capital letter within body of claims. Capital letter should only be used for first letter of claim and abbreviation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
4. The following is a quotation 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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, claimed subject matter, “identify the social media platform and design the different communication platform to appear as the social media platform from which the message was intercepted” 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. Closest description in specification is ([0037] Once triggered (block 73), the user is transferred (block 74) to the separate secure payment platform for receiving payment information and validating the payment information. The secure payment platform can appear the same as the social network through which the communication was occurring so that the user is unaware of the transfer and different standards or protocols used via the secure payment platform. Thus, in one embodiment, the separate secure payment platform is designed to look the same as the social network site through which the user was originally communicating. However, in another embodiment, the design of the secure payment platform can differ from the social networking site.). There is no description pertaining to design “different communication platform”. There is no algorithm or procedure described in speciation about steps of designing “different communication platform to appear as the social media platform from which the message was intercepted.
Since claims 2-9 and 12-20 include the respective limitations of claims 1 or 11 since they depend therefrom, these claims are rejected for the grounds and rationale used to reject claims 1 and 11.
Appropriate correction or clarification of these claims is required. No new matter may be added.
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 1-9 and 11-20 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11 , in the newly recited limitation, “intercept from one of the social media platforms a message comprising one of the recipients and payment information for payment of the payment transaction to be made to the recipient from a sender of the message for transfer to a different communication platform, wherein the sender is preregistered with the different communication platform; identify the social media platform and design the different communication platform to appear as the social media platform from which the message was intercepted;” It is unclear to examiner that what scope of phrase “different communication platform.” If user is preregister with the communication platform then it means that “the communication platform” is already exist then how the limitation “design the different communication platform to appear as the social media platform.” (refer back to same communication platform that user pre-registered with ) works or needed.
Since claims 2-9 and 12-20 include the respective limitations of claims 1 or 11 since they depend therefrom, these claims are rejected for the grounds and rationale used to reject claims 1 and 11.
Appropriate correction or clarification of these claims is required. No new matter may be added.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11636479 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10922688. although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because This rejection is made because the claims in the present application and the claims in the identified patents are directed to computer-implemented systems for performing secure payment transactions via social network platforms, and the differences between them would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. All three application claims that are directed toward, stores recipient information, detects or intercepts a social network message containing payment information, transfers the user to a secure or different platform for payment processing, validates and processes payment information, and Sends notification to the recipient. Because the claims of the present application are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patents 11,636,479 and 10,922,688, the pending claims are rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting to prevent an unjustified extension of patent rights for the same invention.
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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter.
In sum, claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 11-20) and a machine (claims 1-10). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
monitor one or more social media platforms for a message posted to the one or more social media platforms regarding a payment transaction; identify the social media platform; deliver the message from the social media platform to the different communication platform upon the selection of the message via the Internet; perform a validation of the payment information with respect to the sender of the message via the different communication platform, comprising: generate a validation score for the payment information; and determine that the validation score satisfies a threshold; process the payment information for the payment transaction via the different communication platform; and provide a notification of the payment transaction to the recipient only after processing of the payment information and upon satisfaction of the threshold by the validation score.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes sub-categories of fundamental economic practices or principles, which includes risk mitigation in a financial transaction (e.g., in the claims: processing a payment transaction from payment information in a social media message, including selecting the message and determining for a payment request in the social media message a validation score and associated threshold based on analysis of the message which includes a recipient and payment information).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “server” having a “central processing unit”, a “memory”, an “input port”, and an “output port”, one or more “social media platform, one or more “social media web platform”, a “social networking platform”, a “communication web platform”, a “chatbot” that provides text for a user, a “different communication platform”, a “different platform”, an “Interwork”, and a “database” for storing various data, do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, steps and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or payment or communication network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or a payment or communication network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 13 and 16-18 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the payment information is provided as a photograph, or via a link, or includes information regarding an amount or a signature or a payment method or the identity of a recipient, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 19 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the validation includes calculating a score using a sum of certain payment information data and the sum is within a certain numerical range, or that the validation may include information regarding whether a recipient has a relationship with the sender or a signature is valid, or that the calculated score has an associated threshold value, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claim 20 simply further refines the abstract idea by requiring that the validation of the payment information is accomplished from a social platform that originated the payment message, which is simply indicating which additional element (platform) performs the validation function without improving any technology or requiring any more specific manner of making the validation, and this claim does not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
10. Examiner’s Note: Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-20, the absence of a prior art rejection of these claims should not be construed as being indicative of the respective claimed subject matter being allowable over any relevant prior art. A complete search and full consideration of relevant prior art will be conducted when these claims recite subject matter that is sufficiently described and supported by the specification such that the claims are sufficiently supported and not indefinite in scope, so that the claimed subject matter and claimed functionality is sufficiently understood so it can be adequately searched for the claimed subject matter (i.e., when the 35 USC §112(b) rejection is overcome). (See e.g., MPEP §2173.06 II)
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Amended claims has a new rejection under 35 USC §112(a)-(b), as described above.
Since applicant has not pointed out any specific error by the Office in the prior Alice rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, there is no need for the Office to respond. Under the current 101 analysis, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein above in the 101 rejection in view of the amended claims. Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, including new mapping to the amended claims, necessitated by applicant’s claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699