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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed December 06, 2023. Claim 1 has been canceled. Claims 2-21 are pending. The rejections are as stated below:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by applicant on 28 December 2023, 29 October 2024, 20 March 2025, 09 September 2025 and 14 January 2026. Per MPEP 2004:
“It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)."
Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is respectfully required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of US Patent No. 10,402,794 B2, claims 1-24 of US Patent No. 11,023,878 B2, claims 1-22 of US Patent No. 11,244,293 B2, claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,410,137 B2, claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,481,741 B2, claims 1-23 of US Patent No. 11,455,604 B2, claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,880,813 B2 and claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,887,074 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The current invention and US Patents ‘794, ‘878, ‘293, ‘137, ‘741, ‘604, ‘813 and ‘074 are all drawn to methods and systems for facilitating a financial transaction between users of a payment service system using a payment proxy. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are all directed to methods and systems for facilitating a financial transaction between users of a payment service system using a payment proxy. The claims in the instant application and US Patents ‘794, ‘878, ‘293, ‘137, ‘741, ‘604, ‘813 and ‘074 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. Applicant omits certain steps from US Patents ‘794, ‘878, ‘293, ‘137, ‘741, ‘604, ‘813 and ‘074.
Furthermore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
For these reasons, the claims of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-24 of US Patent No. 10,402,794 B2, claims 1-24 of US Patent No. 11,023,878 B2, claims 1-22 of US Patent No. 11,244,293 B2, claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,410,137 B2, claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,481,741 B2, claims 1-23 of US Patent No. 11,455,604 B2, claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,880,813 B2 and claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,887,074 B2, but they are not patently distinct.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for facilitating a financial transaction between users of a payment service using identifiers.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent system claims 2, recites the limitations of associating a first proxy identifier (ID) with a first financial account associated with a first user, wherein the first proxy ID has a syntax including a symbol followed by a first string of one or more characters comprising at least one letter, wherein the symbol and the first string are concatenated such that the symbol appears immediately before the string; generating a second proxy ID, the second proxy ID having the syntax including the symbol followed by a second string of one or more characters and including at least one letter; associating the second proxy ID with the first proxy ID based at least on a first configured rule that automatically allocates at least a portion of funds received via the second proxy ID to the first financial account associated with the first proxy ID; detecting in a message from a sending user to a receiving user, the second proxy ID; and based at least on the detecting the second proxy ID in the message, initiating a transfer of funds from a financial account of the sending user, wherein at least some of the transferred funds are transferred to the first financial account based at least on the first configured rule that associates the second proxy ID with the first proxy ID.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps directed to organizing human activity, namely a fundamental economic practice of transferring funds between user’s accounts using identifiers and applying rules. Certain methods of organizing human activity, including a fundamental economic practice, represent an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Therefore, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 2 recites limitations that fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a payment service system comprising: one or more processors configured by executable instructions to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0186-0189). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 2, 11 and 20. Furthermore, dependent claims 3-10, 12-19 and 21 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Claims 3-10, 12-19 and 21 recite additional limitations such as, a second financial account with configurable allocation rules, multiple proxy identifiers, automatically allocating another portion of funds, different message types (a messaging application; a short messaging service text message; an email message; or a post to a website) and different types symbols (a non-alphanumeric symbol; or a currency indicator that corresponds to a specified currency of a plurality of currencies). These limitations further define the abstract idea. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational of claim 2 above.
dependent claims 3-10, 12-19 and 21, do not add any additional elements. The additional elements are addressed above under integration to a practical application and inventive concept. The additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 2-21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The prior art of record (Cozens et al. US 8,762,272 B1) teaches systems and methods for conducting electronic peer-to-peer payments. More particularly, an email payment system and method to provide users with the ability to initiate and send payments to one more recipients via email messaging. A user interface is provided in an email client that allows a user to insert payment with the email. Payment details are collected through one or more payment modals displayed in the email client. A payment object is inserted into the body of the email and is displayed to both the sender and recipient.
(CAPPS et al. US 2017/0287022 A1) teaches systems and methods for facilitating transactions between a merchant-partner and an end-user. In one embodiment, a service provider: (a) stages a transaction between a merchant and a consumer; (b) creates a transaction-specific unique reference locator (URL) linked to a transaction-specific web page; and (c) sends the transaction-specific URL to the consumer's mobile device. Whereupon the consumer clicks on the transaction specific URL on their mobile device, the service provider displays a token ID on the transaction-specific web page. The token ID is linked to the staged transaction and is used to initiate data communication between a point-of-sale (POS) terminal and the service provider's processing unit. The service provider can then: receive confirmation that the consumer has presented the token ID and a payment to the POS terminal; display a transaction receipt on the transaction-specific web page; and/or notify the merchant that the consumer has provided the payment.
(Katzin et al. US 2012/0158589 A1) teaches a social media payment platform apparatuses, methods and systems ("SocialPay") transform message posts to social networks via SocialPay components into payment transaction receipts social merchant-consumer bridging offers. In one implementation, the SocialPay obtains a user social pay initiation trigger, and obtains user social data from a social networking site. The SocialPay identifies a social pay command within the user social data. In one implementation, the SocialPay, in identifying the social pay command within the user social data, parses the user social data, and extracts a social pay command string within the user social data. The SocialPay determines a payor identifier, a payee identifier, and a payment amount using the social pay command string. Based on the identified social pay command, the SocialPay initiates a funds payment transaction.
Even though, the prior art of record teaches payment processing systems and methods performing the above mentioned steps, the prior art of record fails to teach in any combination a computer-implemented method and a payment service system comprising the steps of associating, by the payment service system, a first proxy identifier (ID) with a first financial account associated with a first user, wherein the first proxy ID has a syntax including a symbol followed by a first string of one or more characters comprising at least one letter, wherein the symbol and the first string are concatenated such that the symbol appears immediately before the string; generating, by the payment service system, a second proxy ID, the second proxy ID having the syntax including the symbol followed by a second string of one or more characters and including at least one letter; associating, by the payment service system, the second proxy ID with the first proxy ID based at least on a first configured rule that automatically allocates at least a portion of funds received via the second proxy ID to the first financial account associated with the first proxy ID; detecting, by the payment service system, in a message from a sending user to a receiving user, the second proxy ID; and based at least on the detecting the second proxy ID in the message, initiating, by the payment service system, a transfer of funds from a financial account of the sending user, wherein at least some of the transferred funds are transferred to the first financial account based at least on the first configured rule that associates the second proxy ID with the first proxy ID.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cozens et al., US 8,762,272 B1 discloses methods and systems for initiating and completing electronic payments by email messaging.
Davis, US 20160117670 A1 discloses systems, methods, and devices for sending and receiving payments using an integrated payment and messaging system and facilitating payment transactions by inferring payment events and payment transactions between groups of users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights