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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/489,673 entitled "SYSTEM AND METHOD WITH REAL TIME MESSAGING" filed on December 30, 2025, with Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, and 19-26 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, and 18 were previously cancelled.
Claims 21-26 are added.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, and 19-26 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 30, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, and 19-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed October 30, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 30, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, and 19-26 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“receiving, …from a receiver institution …an interaction request message for an interaction comprising a sender identifier associated with a sender and interaction details comprising an amount for the interaction, wherein the sender identifier is an alias;
performing, …, a lookup on an alias directory to determine that the alias is not stored in the alias directory,
wherein the alias directory comprises a … storing aliases mapped to real credentials based on determining that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, generating a plurality of notifications comprising the sender identifier and …, …, the plurality of notifications to a plurality of sender institution …;
receiving, … a plurality of responses from the plurality of sender institution …, one or more responses indicating that the sender identifier is stored at the sender institution… such that the interaction can proceed without the alias being available in the alias directory
providing, …the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to one or more of the sender institution … that store the sender identifier,
wherein one or more of the sender institution …initiate a real time transaction by transferring the amount of funds from one of the one or more sender institution computers to the receiver institution … after the real time messaging … provides the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to the one of the one or more sender institution ….”
These limitations clearly relate to managing interactions between a sender and a recipient. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving… an interaction request message for an interaction” and “providing…the interaction details” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[by a/the real time messaging computer] [computers]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmitting] :
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0024] server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit. In one example, the server computer may be a database server coupled to a Web server.
[0036] Receiver institution computer 104 may be a computing device associated with a receiver institution at which the receiver may have an account
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 3:
“real time”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 4:
“computer”, “API”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“real time”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 6:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“real time”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 8: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 9:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 10:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“encrypted”: merely applying encryption technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“real time”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 11: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 13: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claims 14 and 23:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmits”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 26:
“computer”, “graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitted”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0024] server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit. In one example, the server computer may be a database server coupled to a Web server.
[0036] Receiver institution computer 104 may be a computing device associated with a receiver institution at which the receiver may have an account
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 15 recites:
“receiving, from a receiver institution …. an interaction request message for an interaction comprising a sender identifier associated with a sender and interaction details comprising an amount for the interaction, wherein the sender identifier is an alias;
performing, …, a lookup on an alias directory to determine that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, wherein the alias directory comprises … storing aliases mapped to real credentials;
based on determining that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, generating a plurality of notifications comprising the sender identifier and … the plurality of notifications to a plurality of sender institution … such that the interaction can proceed without the alias being available in the alias directory;
receiving a plurality of responses from the plurality of sender institution … one or more responses indicating that the sender identifier is stored at the sender institution … such that the interaction can proceed without the alias being available in the alias directory; and
providing the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to one or more of the sender institution … that store the sender identifier,
wherein one or more of the sender institution … initiate a real time transaction by transferring funds from one of the one or more sender institution … to the receiver institution … after the real time messaging … provides the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to the one of the one or more sender institution ...”
These limitations clearly relate to managing interactions between a sender and a recipient. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving… an interaction request message for an interaction” and “providing…the interaction details” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[real time messaging computer comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, to perform] [computer][computers]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmitting] :
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0024] server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit. In one example, the server computer may be a database server coupled to a Web server.
[0036] Receiver institution computer 104 may be a computing device associated with a receiver institution at which the receiver may have an account
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 21:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 24:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmits”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0024] server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit. In one example, the server computer may be a database server coupled to a Web server.
[0036] Receiver institution computer 104 may be a computing device associated with a receiver institution at which the receiver may have an account
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 16 recites:
“A method comprising receiving, by a receiver institution … an interaction request message associated with an interaction, the interaction request message comprising a sender identifier associated with a sender and interaction details comprising an amount for the interaction from a receiver … wherein the sender identifier is an alias;
…, by the receiver institution …, the interaction request message to a real time messaging …, wherein the real time messaging … performs a lookup on an alias directory to determine that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, wherein the alias directory comprises a … storing aliases mapped to real credentials, based on determining that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, generates a plurality of notifications comprising the sender identifier, … the plurality of notifications to a plurality of sender institution …, and receives a plurality of responses from the plurality of sender institution …, indicating that the sender identifier is stored at the sender institution …, such that the interaction can proceed without the alias being available in the alias directory;
and receiving, by the receiver institution computer from the sender institution …, the amount, wherein one or more of the sender institution … initiate a real time transaction by transferring the amount of funds from one of the one or more sender institution … to the receiver institution computer after the real time messaging computer provides the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to the one of the one or more sender institution...”
These limitations clearly relate to managing interactions between a sender and a recipient. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving… an interaction request message for an interaction” and “providing…the interaction details” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer][computers] [device][to a real time messaging computer][the real time messaging computer transmits]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmitting]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0024] server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit. In one example, the server computer may be a database server coupled to a Web server.
[0036] Receiver institution computer 104 may be a computing device associated with a receiver institution at which the receiver may have an account
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 19: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 20:
“computer”, “device”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitting”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 22: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 25:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmits”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0024] server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit. In one example, the server computer may be a database server coupled to a Web server.
[0036] Receiver institution computer 104 may be a computing device associated with a receiver institution at which the receiver may have an account
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz ("SECURE DATA INTERCHANGE", U.S. Publication Number: 20090254971 A1) in view of Vanhouten (“DIRECT EXTENDED REACH SYSTEM AND METHOD”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220172209 A1),in view of Tomimo (“COMMUNICATION DEVICE”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2007148858 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
Herz teaches,
receiving, by a real time messaging computer from a receiver institution computer,
(Herz [0027] a user might prefer to use a number of different pseudonyms ...A user might maintain a number of different aliases
Herz [0141] As with the SUBMIT command, first the SDI data warehouse checks that the alias exists, and challenges the agent that submits the CHANGE request
Herz [0133] We use “agent” to refer to the computer system that interacts with the central SDI data warehouse, submitting data and requesting payment from the eBank. Agents may represent individuals, vendors, or other self-interested parties.
Here the "real time messaging computer from a receiver institution computer" is the “agent” computer system of "vendors, or other self-interested parties.")
an interaction request message for an interaction comprising a sender identifier associated with a sender and interaction details comprising an amount for the interaction, wherein the sender identifier is an alias;
(Herz [0112] An agent can use a different public key for each alias that it maintains within SDI. The SDI identity code is a unique code, generated by SDI for each agent alias
Herz [0134] Data records can be submitted under multiple aliases by a single agent, to provide an additional level of control and flexibility in managing data submitted to SDI.
Herz [0158] on-line vendors to collect information about a single individual via “cookies” (identifying codes which are left on a user's client machine)
Herz [0027] Data owners can submit data to the central data warehouse with different degrees of identification, for example anonymously, pseudonymously...A user might maintain a number of different aliases within the database
Herz [0026] The pricing model allows a data owner to specify a price for different types and amounts of information access
Herz [0576] data any that vendor collects in the course of doing business (especially e-commerce); generally, it links customer codes to purchase items, dates, quantities, and prices )
performing, by the real time messaging computer, a lookup on an alias directory to determine that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, wherein the alias directory comprises a database storing aliases mapped to real credentials based on determining that the alias is not stored in the alias directory
(Herz [0139] SDI first checks the alias against its record of existing aliases. .... if the alias is not found, then a new SDI identity code is created.
Herz [0178] Second, the querying agent specifies whether it is required that the information be provided along with the identity of the owner of the information. Assume that the agent's identity is either revealed (with a real ... identity)
Herz [0546] The vendor then passes the letter X and the signed ID code to a trusted mailer....The physical address authority verifies that the trusted mailer is a valid service, and releases the real address of the user to the mailer.
Herz [0808] An application of SDI is that vendors can use the centrally stored information)
such that the interaction can proceed without the alias being available in the alias directory;
(Herz [0139] SDI first checks the alias against its record of existing aliases. .... if the alias is not found, then a new SDI identity code is created.
Herz [0803] As the trend to disintermediation continues (whereby we have informational middlemen, but not middlemen that physically hold products) we can allow vendors to notify portal intermediaries of product location within SDI,)
providing, by the real time messaging computer, the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to one or more of the sender institution computers that store the sender identifier
(Herz [0715] The central SDI data warehouse can be used by vendors that provide services of buyer infomediaries, for example providing buyers in B2C e-commerce applications with historical information about previous purchases of users.
Herz [0354] to support a personalized session with another agent ...To also support data mining by agents of a shared database, the client-side data records could useful push data
Herz [0365] A central application of SDI is a system where users submit profile information to the shared SDI data base, and receive personalized information and possible cash payments in return.)
wherein one or more of the sender institution computers initiate a real time transaction by transferring the amount of funds from one of the one or more sender institution computers to the receiver institution computer after the real time messaging computer provides the interaction details and/or additional interaction details to the one of the one or more sender institution computers.
(Herz [0043] The system allows for payments to be received by the providers of information
Herz [1113] the transfer of funds from the users account to the vendor's
Herz [0259] Given this information the agent can then decide whether to proceed with a query, and how much money to allocate.
Herz [0767] these electronic transfers of money and passed back through the interchange
Herz [0259] Given this information the agent can then decide whether to proceed with a query, and how much money to allocate.)
Herz does not teach generating a plurality of notifications comprising the sender identifier and transmitting, by the real time messaging computer, the plurality of notifications to a plurality of sender institution computers; receiving, by the real time messaging computer, a plurality of responses from the plurality of sender institution computers, one or more responses indicating that the sender identifier is stored at the sender institution computers;
Herz alludes to a lookup on an alias directory to determine that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, … based on determining that the alias is not stored in the alias directory
Vanhouten more explicitly teaches,
a lookup on an alias directory to determine that the alias is not stored in the alias directory, … based on determining that the alias is not stored in the alias directory
(Vanhouten [0036] an account alias
Vanhouten [0039] A return notifications API
Vanhouten [Claim 4] wherein the received response comprises a code indicating a reason for a payout return including...an account not found; a bank could not be located using bank information provided;
...an identification number provided to identify the beneficiary does not match an owner of the account; missing sender data;
Vanhouten [page 5, Table 7] a validation failure (missing mandatory fields, etc.)
Vanhouten [0015] connects with application program interfaces (APIs) ...A database 120 that stores lookup information)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the API messaging teachings of Vanhouten for an “a second push API 116 associated with the PSP to populate a push message.” (Vanhouten [0019]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. API messaging) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “push funds to card accounts may be expanded to include additional fields supporting transfers to non-card accounts via PSPs to provide the send payouts API” Vanhouten [0026])
Vanhouten does not teach generating a plurality of notifications comprising the sender identifier and transmitting, by the real time messaging computer, the plurality of notifications to a plurality of sender institution computers; receiving, by the real time messaging computer, a plurality of responses from the plurality of sender institution computers, one or more responses indicating that the sender identifier is stored at the sender institution computers;
Tomimo teaches,
generating a plurality of notifications comprising the sender identifier and transmitting, by the real time messaging computer, the plurality of notifications to a plurality of sender institution computers;
(Tomimo [Abstract] notification message information for notifying other address information stored in an other address storage part of the change of its own address information is automatically created and transmitted. When the notification is not received by the destination but a reception error occurs (Yes at S72), another address information (alternate address information) of the owner of the address information (error address information) which has caused the reception error is automatically created (S75) and enquiry message information is automatically transmitted (S77) to other address information belonging to the same group as the error address information according to grouping information stored in the other address storage part.)
receiving, by the real time messaging computer, a plurality of responses from the plurality of sender institution computers, one or more responses indicating that the sender identifier is stored at the sender institution computers;
(Tomimo [Abstract] to other address information belonging to the same group as the error address information according to grouping information stored in the other address storage part. When the alternate address information is acquired as a reply to the enquiry message information, the notification message information is transmitted anew to the alternate address information.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the missing alias notification teachings of Tomimo for an “notification message information for notifying other address information.” (Tomimo [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. missing alias notification) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “another address information … is automatically created (S75) and enquiry message information is automatically transmitted” Tomimo [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 3,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach wherein the real time transaction is an original credit transaction (OCT) transaction.
Vanhouten teaches,
wherein the real time transaction is an original credit transaction (OCT) transaction.
(Vanhouten [0026] The receive-side Original Credit Transaction (OCT) API that enables push funds to card accounts may be expanded)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the Original Credit Transaction teachings of Vanhouten for a “receive-side Original Credit Transaction (OCT) API.” (Vanhouten [0026]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. Original Credit Transaction) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “push funds to card accounts may be expanded to include additional fields supporting transfers to non-card accounts via PSPs to provide the send payouts API” Vanhouten [0026])
Regarding Claim 4,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach wherein the receiver institution computer communicates with the real time messaging computer via a first application programming interface (API) and the plurality of sender institution computers communicate with the real time messaging computer via a second API.
Vanhouten teaches,
wherein the receiver institution computer communicates with the real time messaging computer via a first application programming interface (API) and the plurality of sender institution computers communicate with the real time messaging computer via a second API.
(Vanhouten [0005] A set of application program interfaces (APIs) allow non-card payment instructions to be generated and routed between endpoints over networks
Vanhouten [0010] various application program interfaces (APIs) of the extended reach payments system
Vanhouten [0015] the “originator” is the requestor/payor 104 (or the acquirer 118 if the same entity) that connects with application program interfaces (APIs) of the transaction processor
Vanhouten [0025] real-time transport protocol (RTP) networks)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the API teachings of Vanhouten for an “API.” (Vanhouten [0026]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. API) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “push funds to card accounts may be expanded to include additional fields supporting transfers to non-card accounts via PSPs to provide the send payouts API” Vanhouten [0026])
Regarding Claim 9,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz teaches,
wherein the interaction request message is signed using a private key associated with the receiver institution computer.
(Herz [0076] The SDI system supplies a private key to trusted SDI client software, that enables only SDI-enabled clients to access profile information...A client can only access embedded information once enabled with a relevant key. Finally, profile ...information is signed with a digital certificate, to prevent third parties from tampering )
Regarding Claim 10,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Herz teaches,
wherein the interaction request message is encrypted using a public key of the real time messaging computer.
(Herz [0520] RSA encryption-decryption function. It is not necessary for all agents to use the same private/public keys.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach wherein the one or more responses is two or more responses.
Vanhouten teaches,
wherein the one or more responses is two or more responses.
(Vanhouten [0024] Return messages sent 3 to the transaction processor 106 and sent 4 to the PSP 108 may confirm the return transaction)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the API teachings of Vanhouten for an “API.” (Vanhouten [0026]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. API) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “push funds to card accounts may be expanded to include additional fields supporting transfers to non-card accounts via PSPs to provide the send payouts API” Vanhouten [0026])
Regarding Claim 13,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach wherein the additional interaction details comprise a credential, the credential being an account identifier of the receiver.
Vanhouten teaches,
wherein the additional interaction details comprise the credential, a credential being an account identifier of the receiver.
(Vanhouten [Claim 18] wherein the request to transfer funds includes fields to communicate: a payment amount; a sending account; a recipient account;)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the account identifier teachings of Vanhouten for an “a sending account; a recipient account” (Vanhouten [Claim 18]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. account identifiers) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a tokenized bank identification number for use in routing the transfer through existing financial processing networks” Vanhouten [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 14,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach wherein the receiver institution computer transmits a notification message to a receiver device of a receiver indicating that the interaction has completed.
Vanhouten teaches,
wherein the receiver institution computer transmits a notification message to a receiver device of a receiver indicating that the interaction has completed.
(Vanhouten [Claim 14] wherein the response received from the payouts service provider comprises a response code indicating one or more of the following: approved and completed successfully)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the completion notification teachings of Vanhouten for a “a response code indicating … completed successfully.” (Vanhouten [Claim 14]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. completion notification ) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “If the policy evaluation indicates a successful result, then the transaction has satisfied the compliance policy … and transmitted to the consensus system for inclusion on the ledger” Vanhouten [0274])
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 16 as described earlier.
Herz teaches,
wherein the alias is a username, phone number, or e-mail address.
(Herz [0357] user's log-in user name and password can be derived from a user's pseudonymous identity, and computed within a cryptographic framework.)
Regarding Claim 20,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 16 as described earlier.
Herz teaches,
transmitting, by the receiver institution computer, a notification message to the receiver device.
(Herz [0072] information in transit between servers and clients can be assured through standard end-to-end cryptographic solutions
Herz [0139] Once validated, the SDI identity code is returned to the agent
Herz [0141] If everything checks out, then SDI returns TRUE)
Regarding Claim 23,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz teaches,
wherein the real time messaging computer transmits …in a prioritized order based on prior sender financial institution behaviors.
(Herz [0088] whether the identity of the owner of the information is revealed to the requesting agent.
Herz [1390] A simple but useful application of LEIA involves on an opt-in basis real time transmission of a sample of driver's location information to a regional traffic-reporting bureau
Herz [0012] When analyzed with the proper statistical tools these data sets can reveal fundamental patterns in the behavior of users, and enable a vendor to provide appropriate information to a user.
Herz [0339] single employee has sent out a signal indicating the need for a meeting and its priority (standard or emergency)...an emergency meeting would be given priority status
Herz [0747] classify users as “experts” that receive priority in the position of their current and future comments
Herz [0081] eBank module in SDI collects payments, and allows those payments to be transferred to external bank accounts, or used in part payment for products and services to SDI-enabled vendors)
Herz does not teach the plurality of notifications to the plurality of sender institution computers.
Tomimo teaches,
the plurality of notifications to the plurality of sender institution computers
(Tomimo [Abstract] notification message information for notifying other address information stored in an other address storage part of the change of its own address information is automatically created and transmitted. When the notification is not received by the destination but a reception error occurs (Yes at S72), another address information (alternate address information) of the owner of the address information (error address information) which has caused the reception error is automatically created (S75) and enquiry message information is automatically transmitted (S77) to other address information belonging to the same group as the error address information according to grouping information stored in the other address storage part.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the missing alias notification teachings of Tomimo for an “notification message information for notifying other address information.” (Tomimo [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. missing alias notification) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “another address information … is automatically created (S75) and enquiry message information is automatically transmitted” Tomimo [Abstract])
Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 23.
Claim 25 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 23.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overHerz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo in view of Azgad-Tromer ("SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPLIANCE-ENABLED DIGITALLY REPRESENTED ASSETS", U.S. Publication Number: 20240104521 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach determining, by the real time messaging computer, a fraud score based on a fraud analysis using data in the interaction request message, and declining by the real time messaging computer if the fraud score exceeds a threshold.
Azgad-Tromer teaches,
determining, by the real time messaging computer, a fraud score based on a fraud analysis using data in the interaction request message,
(Azgad-Tromer [0248] (Protecting assets from theft or coercion), and/or also to track fraud
Azgad-Tromer [0314] allow the consensus system to detect fraud
Azgad-Tromer [0004] analyze transaction patterns on cryptocurrency that they handle, e.g., to make judgements as to whether their customers are engaging in risky or potentially illegal transactions.
Azgad-Tromer [0384] may develop information about a customer (e.g., information about a fraudulent transaction, or updated risk scoring information)
Azgad-Tromer [0118] the wallet's risk score
Azgad-Tromer [0342] operations that involve commingled assets (even those requested by the user))
and declining by the real time messaging computer if the fraud score exceeds a threshold.
(Azgad-Tromer [0247] activating restrictions and reporting, such as transaction amounts thresholds or any other criteria that can be evaluated on transaction patterns
Azgad-Tromer [0225] block, issue alerts, or require manual approvals if these exceed some criteria (e.g.,...falls below a threshold).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the fraud scoring teachings of Azgad-Tromer to “allow the consensus system to detect fraud.” (Azgad-Tromer [0314]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fraud scoring) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “analyze transaction patterns on cryptocurrency that they handle, e.g., to make judgements as to whether their customers are engaging in risky or potentially illegal transactions” Azgad-Tromer [0004])
Claims 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overHerz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo in view of Katzin ("MERCHANT-CONSUMER BRIDGING PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS", U.S. Publication Number: US 20120303425 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach wherein the real time transaction is an original credit transaction (OCT) transaction.
Katzin teaches,
wherein the real time transaction is an original credit transaction (OCT) transaction.
(Katzin [0137] the processing request message 326 may take a form similar to the Visa Single Message System (SMS) format, Visa Original Credit Transaction (OCT) format, and/or the like.
Katzin [0160] In further implementations, interacting with the wallet in real time)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the transaction formatting of Katzin for “a variety of consumer merchant checkout formats.” (Katzin [0125]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. transaction formatting) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “may further facilitate data collection such as, but not limited to web claws, merchant statistics, dollar ranges of merchant products, card history, and/or the like” Katzin [0125])
Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 26,
Herz, Vanhouten, and Tomimo teach the real-time messaging of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Herz does not teach causing display, in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, a list of contacts, wherein a user of the user device selects a contact from the list; and causing display, in the GUI, of interface elements to configure request details, wherein the user enters the request details, thereby causing the interaction request message to be generated and transmitted to the receiver institution computer.
Katzin teaches,
causing display, in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, a list of contacts, wherein a user of the user device selects a contact from the list; and causing display, in the GUI, of interface elements to configure request details, wherein the user enters the request details, thereby causing the interaction request message to be generated and transmitted to the receiver institution computer.
(Katzin [0394] a graphical user interface (“GUI”) element
Katzin [0364] a user may select the address book option 3917 to view the address book 3917a which includes a list of contacts 3917b and make any money transfers or payments. ...the address book may identify each contact using their names and available and/or preferred modes of payment. For example, a contact Amanda G. may be paid
Katzin [0229] MCB-Platform may populate an automatic message on the consumer's social media profile
Katzin [0351] may populate a data/command object
Katzin [0247] may generate a transfer request
Katzin [0084] may be associated with an electronic wallet 203, which may comprise one or more of a bank account)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the real-time messaging of Herz to incorporate the list of contacts of Katzin to “select the address book.” (Katzin [0364]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. list of contacts) to a known concept (i.e. real-time messaging) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “e address book may identify each contact using their names and available and/or preferred modes of payment.” Katzin [0364])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on December 30, 2025, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“The Claims do not Recite an Abstract Idea… the claims only recite operations for automatically processing and storing data, which is inherently computer-rooted…The independent claims as amended include additional operations that focus on steps performed by the computing device"
Examiner responds:
The Examiner maintains the limitations clearly relate to managing interactions between a sender and a recipient. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving… an interaction request message for an interaction” and “providing…the interaction details” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
All the “operations for automatically processing and storing data” amount to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Applicant states:
“Prior systems suffer from shortcomings - "For example, if an alias is not in the alias directory, then the request for interaction is declined.... This can ... result in the use of additional computing resources. Additionally, registration of aliases can be cumbersome and also results in the use of additional computing resources." … While conventional systems would simply decline requested interactions if the alias could not be found in the alias directory, embodiments of the invention provide for an efficient way to remedy this problem by communicating with various sender institution computers in real time." "
Examiner responds:
The Examiner asserts the Applicant’s claim that “conventional systems would simply decline requested interactions if the alias could not be found … by (not) communicating with various sender institution computers” as false. Redundancy via multiple data collection points exist in prior art systems:
Herz [0535] the main SDI server can receive user profile data generated from ...modules located on the various multiple information vendor servers.
Herz [0570] The current invention, the system of Secure Data Interchange, allows correlations to be identified between vendor's data sets...With SDI it is possible to leverage as many data sources as are available, about users and the target objects with which they interact.
Vanhouten [0041] Multiple APIs are provided to support interactions between entities of the extended reach system to initiate and manage payouts to recipient endpoints.
Vanhouten [0031] network uses assigned pseudo identities as a proxy that allows institutions outside a card-based network to send and receive payments to participating bank accounts or third party payment accounts
In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
The Applicant states:
“This is similar to the patent-eligible claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp."
Examiner responds:
In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327, 1330 (Fed. Cir, 2016)….the court explained that "the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements…. the self-referential table recited in (that case) …. is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. The specification's disparagement of conventional data structures, combined with language describing the ‘present invention’ as including the features that make up a self-referential table, confirm that our characterization of the ‘invention’ for purposes of the § 101… the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Accordingly, we find the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea"
The Applicant’s present invention may plausibly solve a business problem; but does not solve a technology problem. The functioning of the computer itself is not improved. The computer only performs transmitting of data over network, receiving/processing/storing data, and performing calculation (manipulating data based on model/algorithm). Covered by MPEP 2106.5(d).
The Applicant states:
“Even Were the Claims Directed to an Abstract Idea, They Would Include "Significantly More" … the claims recite inventive concepts, providing significantly more than any alleged abstract idea."
Examiner responds:
The Examiner asserts the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. All technological components (additional elements) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0022] A “user device” may be any suitable device that a user can interact with (e.g., a payment card or mobile phone). User devices may be in any suitable form. Some examples of user devices include …cellular phones, PDAs, personal computers (PCs), tablet computers, and the like. In some embodiments, where a user device is a mobile device, the mobile device may include a display, a memory, a processor, a computer-readable medium, and any other suitable component.
[0038] A payment processing network may include data processing subsystems, networks, and operations used to support and deliver authorization services, exception file services, and clearing and settlement services. An exemplary payment processing network may include VisaNet™.
[0024] A “server computer” may include a powerful computer or cluster of computers. For example, the server computer can be a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers functioning as a unit.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Tomimo (“COMMUNICATION DEVICE”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2007148858 A)
Katzin ("MERCHANT-CONSUMER BRIDGING PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS", U.S. Publication Number: US 20120303425 A1).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Modi (“MONEY TRANSFER SERVICE WITH AUTHENTICATION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20060006224 A1) proposes an online money transfer service (or "portal"). A sender logs into the portal and enters payment card and money transfer details and then submits the transaction. An authentication window appears displaying the sender's transaction details and the sender is prompted to enter his or her password. Upon successful authentication, the bank seeks authorization from the card issuer. Upon successful authorization, the bank credits the recipient's local bank account or existing payment card. The recipient can also receive a check, a draft, a prepaid card or cash. The money transfer service is used both cross-border and domestic to effect person-to-person money transfer. The money transfer service uses the "Verified by Visa" authentication service and VisaNet for authorization. Messages over VisaNet are used to deliver funds to a recipient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights