DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 20 are amended.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that the claims “do not “recite” an abstract idea”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) providing payee data service. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, via at least one..., (i) payee electronically protected information (EPI) of a given payee and (ii) payer access data indicating one or more payers that have permission to access the payee EPI, wherein the payee EPI comprises at least one of tax information or bank account information of the given payee; storing the payee EPI of the given payee in a ... that is off of the ...; storing the payer access data and a hash that comprises a secure, one-way reference to the payee EPI on the ... such that the hash is accessible by a payer CSP for validating the payee EPI, wherein the payer CSP is configured to operate as a second ...; receiving from the payer CSP, over a secure communication channel between the payer CSP and the payee CSP established through the at least one ..., a request by a given payer for the payee EPI of the given payee; and after receiving the request for the payee EPI of the given payee, verifying that the given payer has permission to access the payee EPI of the given payee by using the payer access data that was previously stored on the...; and based on verifying that the given payer has permission to access the payee EPI of the given payee, (i) obtaining the payee EPI of the given payee from the ... that is off of the... and (ii) transmitting to the payer CSP, over the secure communication channel established through the at least one ..., the payee EPI of the given payee, wherein the payer CSP thereafter validates the payee EPI using the hash that was previously stored on the ... before sending the payee EPI to the given payer.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for providing payee data service. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The applicant argues that the claims “integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application” because the additional elements “improve upon existing networked architectures for facilitating secure B2B transactions between a payer and a payee.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite operations that are merely performed by payee CSP. “network architecture” is not in the claim. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The applicant further argues that “the combination of additional elements recited by amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16, when taken together, supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner note, as responded above, that the applicant stated inventive concept of improving network architecture is not in the claim. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using blockchain-based distributed ledger, secure data store, payee CSP, payor CSP, computing device, node, network interface, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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, 5-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-9 and 21-22 are directed to a system, claims 10-12 and 14-15 are directed to CRM, and claims 16-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) providing payee data service. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, via at least one..., (i) payee electronically protected information (EPI) of a given payee and (ii) payer access data indicating one or more payers that have permission to access the payee EPI, wherein the payee EPI comprises at least one of tax information or bank account information of the given payee; storing the payee EPI of the given payee in a ... that is off of the ...; storing the payer access data and a hash that comprises a secure, one-way reference to the payee EPI on the ... such that the hash is accessible by a payer CSP for validating the payee EPI, wherein the payer CSP is configured to operate as a second ...; receiving from the payer CSP, over a secure communication channel between the payer CSP and the payee CSP established through the at least one ..., a request by a given payer for the payee EPI of the given payee; and after receiving the request for the payee EPI of the given payee, verifying that the given payer has permission to access the payee EPI of the given payee by using the payer access data that was previously stored on the...; and based on verifying that the given payer has permission to access the payee EPI of the given payee, (i) obtaining the payee EPI of the given payee from the ... that is off of the... and (ii) transmitting to the payer CSP, over the secure communication channel established through the at least one ..., the payee EPI of the given payee, wherein the payer CSP thereafter validates the payee EPI using the hash that was previously stored on the ... before sending the payee EPI to the given payer.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for providing payee data service. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain-based distributed ledger, secure data store, payee CSP, payor CSP, computing device, node, network interface, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing payee data service) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using blockchain-based distributed ledger, secure data store, payee CSP, payor CSP, computing device, node, network interface, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 11 and 17 describe payer access list and payer access validation. Dependent claims 3, 12, 18 and 22 describe requesting payee for data access authorization. Dependent claims 5, 14 and 19 describe encrypting data prior transmitting. Dependent claim 6 describe validating payee EPI data prior storing. Dependent claims 7, 15 and 20 describe updating payee EPI data. Dependent claim 8 describes updating payer access list and verify payer based on the access list. Dependent claim 9 describe establishing a federated account. Dependent claim 21 describes updating payer access list on the blockchain-based distributed ledger and providing access for payer. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain-based distributed ledger, secure data store, payee CSP, payor CSP, computing device, node, network interface, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of providing payee data service. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of blockchain-based distributed ledger, secure data store, payee CSP, payor CSP, computing device, node, network interface, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of record is US20180247302A1 (“Armstrong et al.”). Armstrong et al. teaches A payee credential service provider (CSP) that is configured to operate as a first node of a blockchain-based distributed ledger, (Fig. 3 items 128 and 124; claim 73) the payee CSP comprising: at least one network interface; (¶0024 and ¶0027) at least one processor; (¶0024 and ¶0027) at least one non-transitory computer readable medium; (¶0024 and ¶0027) program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the payee CSP to: (¶0024 and ¶0027) store the payee EPI of the given payee in a secure data store that is off of the blockchain-based distributed ledger; (Fig. 3 item 134; ¶0090) receive from the payer CSP, over a secure communication channel between the payer CSP and the payee CSP established through the at least one network interface, a request by a given payer for the payee EPI of the given payee; and (¶0015, ¶0104, ¶0110 and ¶0138) based on verifying that the given payer has permission to access the payee EPI of the given payee, (i) obtain the payee EPI of the given payee from the secure data store that is off of the blockchain-based distributed ledger and (ii) transmit to the payer CSP, over the secure communication channel established through the at least one network interface, the payee EPI of the given payee, wherein the payer CSP thereafter validates the payee EPI using the hash that was previously stored on the blockchain-based distributed ledger before sending the payee EPI to the given payer. (¶¶0105-106 and ¶¶0137-138). However, the prior art does not teach receive, via the at least one network interface, (i) payee electronically protected information (EPI) of a given payee and (ii) payer access data indicating one or more payers that have permission to access the payee EPI, wherein the payee EPI comprises at least one of tax information or bank account information of the given payee; store the payer access data and a hash that comprises a secure, one-way reference to the payee EPI on the blockchain-based distributed ledger such that the hash is accessible by a payer CSP for validating the payee EPI, wherein the payer CSP is configured to operate as a second node of the blockchain-based distributed ledger; and after receiving the request for the payee EPI of the given payee, verify that the given payer has permission to access the payee EPI of the given payee by using the payer access data that was previously stored on the blockchain-based distributed ledger.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A Survey of Payment Approaches for Identity Federations in Focus of the SAML technology (“Lutz et al.”) analyses electronic payment approaches and Identity Federation mechanisms. It focuses on a solution to bridge electronic payment with Identity Federation.
US20110213707A1(“Jackson et al.”) discloses a system and method for facilitating person-to-person payments. A payer request to pay a payee identified by a first contact identifier is received. Upon failing to locate the payee in a data repository of registered payees via the first contact identifier, the first contact identifier is utilized to transmit a registration invitation to the payee. Information associated with the request may be stored pending registration by the payee, and the invitation may include a link to a payment service provider site and an indicator of the stored information. Based upon a payee selection of the link, the indicator and identifying information for the payee other than the first contact identifier is received. The received identifying information is utilized to determine a pre-existing registration of the payee with the payment service provider, and the stored information is utilized to direct a payment to the payee.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697