DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to an amendment dated February 13, 2026. Claims 6-7 and 15 are canceled. Claims 22-23 are newly added. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-5, 8-14 and 16-23 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—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)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Claim 17 which is illustrative of independent claims 1 and 9 recites:
17. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more group fund processors, one or more limits associated with a group fund account to initiate the creation of the group fund account;
receiving, by one or more account processors, account data associated with a group member account of an invited user to initiate the connection of the group member account with the group fund account; and
linking, by the one or more account processors, (i) the group fund account to a primary account so that the group fund account is configured to (i) provide funds to the primary account, and (ii) the group member account of the invited user to the group fund account so that an amount can be transferred from the group member account of the invited user to the group fund account; and
transferring the amount from the group member account to the group fund account thereby funding the primary account from the group fund account [[.]]:
receiving transaction data associated with a purchase made using the primary account;
comparing the transaction data to the one or more limits associated with the group fund account
responsive to the transaction data satisfying the one or more limits, reimbursing the primary account by transferring funds from the group fund account to the primary account; and
blocking, by the one or more group fund processors, the group fund account from being used to directly fund a transaction at a merchant, wherein the primary account pays the merchant for the purchase regardless of whether the transaction data satisfies the one or more limits.
2A, Prong One, Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is a certain method of organizing human activity that is a fundamental economic practice of funds transfer based on predefined conditions or and 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
These limitations describe steps a person would take in evaluating a funds transfer request against predefined criteria (see App. Spec. paras. 00014-00024; Figs. 1-2). The innovation as claimed appears to be directed to the user’s objective of accessing account information used to process a funds transfer request whereby the transacting financial institutions comply with predefined terms governing when and how access is granted to the respective accounts (App. Spec. paras. 0011-0020; Abstract).
Evaluating information based on the existing data as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing device (processor, network – App. Spec. paras. 0016-0020, 0024), there does not appear to be any technology being improved. They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which requests to transfer funds between accounts and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
receiving transaction data associated with a purchase made using the primary account;
comparing the transaction data to the one or more limits associated with the group fund account responsive to the transaction data satisfying the one or more limits,
reimbursing the primary account by transferring funds from the group fund account to the primary account; and
blocking, by the one or more group fund processors, the group fund account from being used to directly fund a transaction at a merchant, wherein the primary account pays the merchant for the purchase regardless of whether the transaction data satisfies the one or more limits.
these suggests a process in which predefined conditions need to be met for a funds transfer to be made from the group member account to the group fund account to the primary account (see App. Spec. Fig. 4 elements 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407), absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the process of authorizing funds to be transferred.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of accessing the funds data because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are computer device which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 18-20 provide descriptive details about the conditions for executing the funds transfer. These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-21 which fall with claims 1-5, 8-14 and 16-23. Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-14 and 16-23. are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims1-5, 8-14 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 17 which is illustrative of independent claims 1 and 9 recites:
Claim 17 recites
A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more group fund processors, one or more limits associated with a group fund account to initiate the creation of the group fund account;
receiving, by one or more account processors, account data associated with a group member account of an invited user to initiate the connection of the group member account with the group fund account; and
linking, by the one or more account processors, (i) the group fund account to a primary account so that the group fund account is configured to (i) provide funds to the primary account, and (ii) the group member account of the invited user to the group fund account so that an amount can be transferred from the group member account of the invited user to the group fund account; [[and]]
transferring the amount from the group member account to the group fund account thereby funding the primary account from the group fund account[[.]];
receiving transaction data associated with a purchase made using the primary account;
comparing the transaction data to the one or more limits associated with the group fund account;
responsive to the transaction data satisfying the one or more limits, reimbursing the primary account by transferring funds from the group fund account to the primary account; and
blocking, by the one or more group fund processors, the group fund account from being used to directly fund a transaction at a merchant, wherein the primary account pays the merchant for the purchase regardless of whether the transaction data satisfies the one or more limits.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein a mobile application is configured to enable a device to interact with a group fund processor of the one or more group fund processors as a group member.
19. The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more limits comprise one or more of a transaction type limit, a merchant identifier limit, a spending limit, a transaction location restriction, transaction date and time limits, or combinations thereof.
20. The method of claim 17, further comprising:
transmitting, by an alert interface, an electronic invitation comprising an amount request to a device of the invited user; and
receiving, by the alert interface, a response to the electronic invitation from the device, wherein the response comprises: (1) an affirmative response to link the group member account associated with the device to the group fund account to transfer the amount from the amount request to the group fund account, (ii) a second affirmative response to link the group member account associated with the device to the group fund account to transfer a different amount than the amount from the amount request to the group fund account, or (iii) a denial response rejecting an invitation to link the group member account associated with the device to the group fund account.
The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea of funds transfer in a manner that allows broad participation by users to make payments (App. authenticate a request for evaluating request (see Spec. paras. 00014-0017) based on pre-defined rules.
These steps describe the process a person would take to set up funds transfer by linking to a group account. Further, this is an example of steps performed by the human mind as mental processes because other than the generic components, nothing precludes these steps from practically being performed as mental processes. It suggests activity that represents longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the internet. See CyberSource Corp. b. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The next step is to determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. computing device and processor; see App. specification paras. 0016-0023 Figs. 1-2).
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g. processor). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. processor) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-23 provide additonal details that describe the invention. For example, claims 18-19 describe details about the accounts. These details do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-5, 8-14 and 16-23 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Todd, USP No. 8498934 (Multi-account Payment Consolidation System).
Finn, US Application No. US 20080201769 (System And Method For Processing Payment Options).
Rowe, US Application No. 20040199438 (Method And System For Implementing Electronic Account Transactions).
Argue et. al. US Application No. 20140156508 (Splitting A Purchase Among Multiple
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 CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 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 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019