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 communication(s) filed on 14 February 2024.
Claim(s) 1 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“if the background check is passed from checking agency,” should be “if the background check is passed from a checking agency,”
“the money sender and money receiver receiving…” should be “the money sender and the money receiver both receiving…” for improved clarity.
“broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;” should be “broadcasting the transaction to service providers who cover[[s]] the money receiver zip code;”
“the service provider keying in transaction code…” should be “the service provider keying in a transaction code…”.
“…transferring money to service provider account…” should be “…transferring money to a service provider account…”
“increment number of attempts by 1;” should be “increment a number of attempts by 1;”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the instant application’s Claim(s) contain one or more contingent limitation(s). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in part, “if the subscriber type is not a service provider and if the user intends to initiate a transaction and if the user want to send money, the money sender subscriber initiating this transaction;”. It is unclear how an intent or want of the user is measured to fulfill the conditionals required of this system. Examiner will interpret the phrase “if the user intends to initiate a transaction and if the user want to send money” as “if the user initiates a transaction to send the money” for purposes of examination for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites in part, “updating a status of subscriber profile”. It is unclear if this “subscriber profile” is the same as the previously recited “subscriber profile” or is a new “subscriber profile”. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the subscriber profile” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites in part, “…if the user want to send money, the money sender subscriber initiating this transaction;”. It is unclear if this “money” is the same as the previously recite “money” in the preamble or is a new “money. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the money” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites in part, “choosing a money receiver subscriber mapped to a money sender subscriber;”. It is unclear if this “a money sender subscriber” is the same as the previously recited “a money sender subscriber” or is a new “a money sender subscriber”. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the money sender subscriber” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “skipping to the step of broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;" (emphasis added) in the 7th limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (i.e. the broadcasting step) in the claim. Examiner will interpret it to recite “skipping to a
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a send money transaction”. It is unclear if this transaction is the same “a transaction” that the money sender subscriber initiated prior or is a new transaction. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the transaction” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “skipping to the step of broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;” it is unclear if this transaction is the same as the previously recited “a transaction”, is the same as the previously recited “a send money transaction” or is a new “transaction”. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the transaction” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “if the money receiver subscriber is found the money receiver subscriber initiating a transaction;”. It is unclear which of the previous transactions this limitation is referring to or if this is a new transaction. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the send money transaction” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “if the money transfer is approved…”. There is a lack of antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret it and further recitation of “the money transfer” to recite “the transaction” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “skipping to the end program step;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret it to recite “skipping to an end program step;” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a money transaction” it is unclear if this transaction is the same as the previously recited monetary transactions or is a new transaction. Examiner will interpret it and the subsequent recitations to recite “the transaction” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “if the service provider accepts transaction, the service provider subscriber accepts the transaction, linking money transaction to service provider who accepted transaction and marking the transaction as reserved;”. It is unclear if these recitations of “transaction” and “money transaction” are the same as any of the previously recited transactions or are new transactions. Examiner will interpret them both to recite “the transaction” for purposes of examination. It is further unclear if this “to service provider” is the same as the previously recited “service provider” or is a new “service provider”. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the service provider for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the service provider delivering money to money receiver;”. It is unclear if this “money” and "money receiver” are the same as the previously recited “money” and “money receiver subscriber” respectively or are new “money and “money receiver”. Examiner will interpret them to recite “the money” and “the money receiver subscriber” respectively for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites “the service provider keying in transaction code shared by money receiver subscriber;” it is unclear if this “receiver subscriber” is the same as the previously recited “receiver subscriber or is a new “receiver subscriber”. Examiner will interpret it to recite “the receiver subscriber” for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites “if the code is valid, transferring money to service provider account and marking the transaction as completed and ending program;”. It is unclear if this “money” and “program” are the same as previously recited or are new recitations. Examiner will interpret them to recite “the money” and “the program” for purposes of examination
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a computer readable medium for a monetary delivery system. It is noted that applicant has defined “computer readable media” to specifically exclude carrier waves and electronic signals in their specification (paragraph [0072]). This is an article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1:
Claim 1:
“a user accessing a login and signup screen and the system creating a subscriber profile with a subscriber type and if the subscriber profile is not complete, sending at least one reminder until the subscriber completes the subscriber profile;”
“if the subscriber type is a service provider, capturing the subscriber consent to execute a background check;”
“if the background check is passed from checking agency, updating a status of subscriber profile with a background check status; and”
“returning the user to the login and signup screen;”
“if the background check is not passed from the checking agency, declining subscription to the user…;”
“if the subscriber type is not a service provider and if the user intends to initiate a transaction and if the user want to send money, the money sender subscriber initiating this transaction;”
“if the subscriber type is not a service provider and if the user intends to initiate a transaction and if the user want to send money, the money sender subscriber initiating this transaction;”
“choosing a money receiver subscriber mapped to a money sender subscriber;”
“if the money receiver subscriber is not found, creating a money receiver subscriber profile, initiating a send money transaction, depositing the money sent in a system administrator bank account, the money sender and money receiver receiving a system generated transaction code, and skipping to the step of broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;”
“if the money receiver subscriber is found the money receiver subscriber initiating a transaction;”
“linking the money sender subscriber to the money receiver subscriber;”
“initiating a request for a money transaction;”
“routing the money transaction to a designated money sender subscriber;”
“the money sender subscriber reviewing the transaction;”
“if the money transfer is approved, send money transaction occurs and instructions skip to the step of broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;”
“if the money transfer is not approved, declining the money transaction;”
“switching the money transaction status to declined;”
“skipping to the end program step;”
“broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;”
“if the service provider accepts transaction, the service provider subscriber accepts the transaction, linking money transaction to service provider who accepted transaction and marking the transaction as reserved;”
“removing the money transaction from the broadcast;”
“the service provider delivering money to money receiver;”
“the service provider keying in transaction code shared by money receiver subscriber;”
“a system administrator validating the transaction code;”
“if the code is valid, transferring money to service provider account and marking the transaction as completed and ending program;”
“if the code is not valid, declining the transfer to service provider; and increment number of attempts by 1;”
“if the number of attempts is less than 3, then returning to checking if the code is valid;”
“if the number of attempts is not less than 3, skipping to the step of broadcasting the transaction to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code to service providers who covers the money receiver zip code;”
“ending the program.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting ““A computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the computer readable medium to carry out steps of a delivery process for requesting and receiving money, the steps comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity or Behavior is described when registering user accounts and transferring money from a sender to a receiver through an intermediary. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“A computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the computer readable medium to carry out steps of a delivery process for requesting and receiving money, the steps comprising:”
“…and send an email to the user;”
The computer components (computer readable medium, a processor and email) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic storage, generic processor, and generic email) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The sending step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally sending an email) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
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.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for sending various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that although prior arts cited do disclose various elements found in the claim, the prior art does not exactly disclose all of the various skipping steps. Examiner further finds that the claim would not have been obvious over the prior of art of record. What follows is a discussion of the closest prior art of record.
Dahn (US 2018/0096351 A1) as the closest prior art of reference discloses remote money transfer utilizing participants undergoing background check that deliver money to a recipient.
Kohli et al. (US 2020/0279243 A1) discloses usage of QR codes or money codes to facilitate a money transfer.
Shirol (EP 2,575,099 A1) discloses determining whether a response matches with a pre-authenticated response in a predetermined number of attempts.
Lieberman et al. (US 10,706,414 B1) discloses sending out of reminders based on relation, frequency and/or other data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hughes (US 2017/0162004 A1) discloses a cash withdrawal system where a user may make a request to withdraw cash from a nearby merchant.
Hasan et al. (WO 2016/065390 A1) discloses the usage of cash-in tokens for cash withdrawals from a cash-out location.
Licciardello et al. (US 2013/0151418 A1) discloses payment from a first party to a second party wherein the second party utilizes a cash card numver to withdraw cash from a remote location.
Nordzi et al. (“GoBeli: Providing Runner Platform for Personal Shopper and Delivery Services for Urban Community”) discloses runner services using on-demand runner booking services for deliveries.
Hernandez et al. (US 11,023,878 B1) discloses storage of many-to-many mappings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691