DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 11/26/2025 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 18/496617 filed 11/26/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined with this office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of performing anonymous transactions without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claim 10 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system and independent claim 20 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer readable medium or media storing instructions to perform functions/steps. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method of performing electronic transfer processes between proximally located devices, the method comprising: receiving, at a mobile device from a transaction coordinator system via a communication network, verification of a signed transaction coordinator authentication token, the received verification comprising initialization data including a first proxy user discovery identifier associated with a user transaction identifier and a first alias identifier for a downstream short-range transfer data process among proximally located devices; receiving, at the mobile device, input representing a request to alter the first alias identifier to a second alias identifier; transmitting, by the mobile device to the transaction coordinator system via said communication network, a signal representing the request to alter the first alias identifier; receiving, at the mobile device from the transaction coordinator system via said communication network, a second proxy user discovery identifier associated with the user transaction identifier and the second alias identifier for the downstream short-range transfer data process; and communicating, by the mobile device, a discovery packet via a short-range wireless network distinct from said communication network, the discovery packet including the second proxy user discovery identifier and a data flag indicating that the discovery packet includes discovery data for the downstream short-range transfer”.
Claim 10 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A mobile device configured to perform electronic transfer processes with proximally located devices, the mobile device comprising: a communication circuit; a processor coupled to the communication circuit; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to: receive, from a transaction coordinator system via a communication network, verification of a signed transaction coordinator authentication token, the received verification comprising initialization data including a first proxy user discovery identifier associated with a user transaction identifier and a first alias identifier for a downstream short-range transfer data process among proximally located devices; receive input representing a request to alter the first alias identifier to a second alias identifier; transmit, to the transaction coordinator system via said communication network, a signal representing the request to alter the first alias identifier; receive, from the transaction coordinator system via said communication network, a second proxy user discovery identifier associated with the user transaction identifier and the second alias identifier for the downstream short-range transfer data process; and communicate a discovery packet via a short-range wireless network distinct from said communication network, the discovery packet including the second proxy user discovery identifier and a data flag indicating that the discovery packet includes discovery data for the downstream short-range transfer”.
Claim 20 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium or media having stored thereon machine interpretable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a computer-implemented method of performing electronic transfer processes between proximally located devices, the method comprising: receiving, at a mobile device from a transaction coordinator system via a communication network, verification of a signed transaction coordinator authentication token, the received verification comprising initialization data including a first proxy user discovery identifier associated with a user transaction identifier and a first alias identifier for a downstream short-range transfer data process among proximally located devices; receiving, at the mobile device, input representing a request to alter the first alias identifier to a second alias identifier; transmitting, by the mobile device to the transaction coordinator system via said communication network, a signal representing the request to alter the first alias identifier; receiving, at the mobile device from the transaction coordinator system via said communication network, a second proxy user discovery identifier associated with the user transaction identifier and the second alias identifier for the downstream short-range transfer data process; and communicating, by the mobile device, a discovery packet via a short-range wireless network distinct from said communication network, the discovery packet including the second proxy user discovery identifier and a data flag indicating that the discovery packet includes discovery data for the downstream short-range transfer”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Performing anonymous transactions is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a device; a communication circuit; a processor; a memory; processor-executable instructions; a transaction coordinator system; a discovery packet via a short-range network; a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media; machine interpretable instructions; a short-range wireless network distinct from said communication network. However, the specification description of the additional elements a device ([0065]); a communication circuit ([0065-0066]); a processor ([0069]); a memory ([0068]); processor-executable instructions ([0069]); a transaction coordinator system ([0058-0060]); a discovery packet via a short-range network ([0054] “… In some embodiments, the short-range network 155 may be a Bluetooth™ low energy network, a near-field communication network, or other short-distance type communication networks”); a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media ([0276-0277]); machine interpretable instructions ([0071]); a short-range wireless network distinct from said communication network ([0065]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7 and 11-16 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 8-9 and 17-19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
Bluetooth™ low energy network or a near field communication network;
a short-range network for at least one of broadcasting or detecting one or more discovery packets and a communication network transmitting the short-range transaction data set to a transaction layer, wherein the communication network is discrete from the short-range network;
the short-range network includes a Bluetooth™ low energy network, and the method further comprising determining a Bluetooth™ transmitter sensitivity setting value associated with communicating the discovery packet via the short-range network.
However, the specification description of the additional elements Bluetooth™ low energy network or a near field communication network ([0053-0054] [0067] [0072-0073] [0108-0109] [0181] [0194]);
a short-range network for at least one of broadcasting or detecting one or more discovery packets and a communication network transmitting the short-range transaction data set to a transaction layer, wherein the communication network is discrete from the short-range network ([0053-0054] [0067] [0072-0073] [0108-0109] [0181] [0194]);
the short-range network includes a Bluetooth™ low energy network, and the method further comprising determining a Bluetooth™ transmitter sensitivity setting value associated with communicating the discovery packet via the short-range network ([0053-0054] [0067] [0072-0073] [0108-0109] [0181] [0194]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations specific to the abstract idea involving proxy identifiers are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. With regard to applicant's argument directed toward CosmKey and Desjardins, the applications in CosmKey and Desjardins made an improvement to an underlying technology, whereas, the present application used a generic technology and computer to implement an abstract idea. Thus, CosmKey and Desjardins are readily distinguishable from the present claims.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “the specification of the present application is clear that some embodiments relate to "short-range transfer systems configured for transient-type electronic payment transactions, such as cash-like transactions" (e.g., email money transfers or e-transfers)”, the examiner maintains that short-range transfers merely relate to the use of a technological environment ([0054] “… a Bluetooth™ low energy network, a near-field communication network, or other short-distance type communication networks) to transfer performing anonymous transactions data. There is no improvement to short-range communication. The applicant’s cited improvements described on pages 6-7 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment submitted 11/26/2025 describe a business solution to a business problem such “one-off” transactions, a party may be reluctant or unwilling to divulge personally identifiable information (e.g., email addresses, phone numbers, and the like) to third parties such as vendors, an individual party may wish to represent themselves as an organization, ect. Acting as a transaction coordinator which acts as an intermediary between a user, their account provider, and other parties with whom they wish to transact does not require a technology. The applicant’s argues that claimed invention describes a “particular architecture”. However, the additional elements of the claimed invention are described and claimed at a high level of generality (see Prong 2 analysis for additional elements). As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited items A-E submitted 08/26/2025 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 08/26/2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a) .
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
01/27/2025