Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
This application claims earliest priority from Provisional Application 63/153,566, filed 02/25/2021.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended, claims 3, 9, 10, 14 and 17 previously canceled.
Claims 1, 13 and 18 being independent claims while claims 2, 4-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 19-24 being dependent.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-16, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 of the claims has been withdrawn. Jabbour, Gomez, and Lavender, taken either alone or in any reasonable combination, fail to teach or suggest at least the following features of Applicant's amended claim 1:
assigning, by a digital tag computer, a receiver digital tag to a receiver account upon validating the receiver account with a first authorizing entity that generated the receiver account, wherein the receiver digital tag is a first unique digital tag that identifies the receiver account;
assigning, by the digital tag computer, a sender digital tag to a sender account upon validating the sender account with a second authorizing entity that generated the sender account, wherein the receiver digital tag is a first unique digital tag that identifies the receiver account;
responsive to receiving a request to resolve the receiver digital tag to an account number or token of the receiver account, resolving, by the digital tag computer, the receiver digital tag to the account number or token of the receiver account; and transmitting, by the digital tag computer, the account number or token of the receiver account to the second transfer application.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they allegedly recite technical features involving a “digital tag computer” that bridge different transfer applications and interacts with different authorizing entities. Applicant further argues that certain features are not “commercial interactions”. These arguments are not persuasive.
Independent claim 1, as amended, is directed to intermediating a financial transfer between a sender and a receiver using aliases (digital tags) across different payment platforms. Facilitating, intermediating, or managing a financial transaction between accounts is a fundamental economic practice, which is a recognized abstract idea under Alice and the USPTO guidance.
Claim 1 recites assigning digital tags to sender and receiver accounts, receiving a transfer request that includes a transfer amount, transmitting the request between applications, resolving a digital tag to an account number or token, and transmitting the resolved account information to enable the transfer. These steps collectively describe intermediating a financial transaction and organizing information relating to the transfer.
Applicant’s argument on page 9 that at least the bolded features of claim 1 are not commercial interactions is not persuasive. While certain individual steps recite technical actions such as generating identifiers or transmitting messages, the claim must be evaluated as a whole. When viewed in their entirety, the claimed steps are performed in service of enabling a financial transfer between accounts, which is inherently a commercial interaction. The inclusion of technical operations does not remove the claim from the realm of commercial activity, as those operations merely support the underlying economic transaction.
Additionally, the claim recites organizing, transmitting and resolving information (digital tags, request identifiers, transfer messages, account numbers or tokens) between applications and servers, which are abstract data processing concepts and also fall within the mental process or methods of organizing human activity groupings, even though they are performed on a computer.
While applicant emphasizes the term “digital tag computer”, the claim merely uses a computer to perform conventional functions such as assigning identifiers, validating accounts, transmitting requests, receiving messages, and resolving identifiers. These steps amount to collecting, processing, and communicating data, which does not remove the claim from abstraction.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they allegedly improve computer functionality by enabling interoperability between different transfer applications and by acting as a technical bridge between systems managed by different entities. This argument is not persuasive.
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any specific technological component. Instead, the claims merely use generic computing elements (e.g., computers, servers, applications, user devices) to perform the abstract idea of facilitating a financial transfer.
The alleged interoperability is achieved by transmitting and receiving messages between applications managed by different servers. Such communication between networked systems is routine and conventional and does not represent a technological improvement. The claims do not recite any specific technical mechanism for improving network performance, data security at a technical level, or computer efficiency.
Further, the claims do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim beyond generic computer components. The recited “digital tag computer” is a generic computer performing conventional data processing functions such as assigning identifiers, validating accounts, transmitting requests, and resolving aliases.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not recite an inventive concept.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an inventive concept because existing systems allegedly could not interact across different transfer applications and because the ordered combination of steps is unconventional. These arguments are not persuasive.
The additional elements of claim 1, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, recite only well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of electronic payments and networked computing. Assigning identifiers, validating accounts, generating request identifiers, transmitting messages between applications, and resolving aliases to account numbers or tokens are conventional functions performed by generic computers.
Applicant’s reliance on the specification to assert that prior systems could not perform the claimed interaction does not establish an inventive concept. The claims themselves do not recite a specific technical solution to a technological problem but instead broadly claim the desired result of cross-platform transfers using an intermediary computer system.
Moreover, the claims do not require any specialized hardware, unconventional data structures, or non-standard communication protocols. The ordered combination of steps merely reflects implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the above reasoning, the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 1-2, 4-8, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claims 1 & 18 are directed to a method and claim 13 is directed to a computer; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for assigning a digital tag to a account upon validating the account, wherein the digital tag is a unique digital tag that identifies the account; receiving a transfer request; generating a request identifier to be associated with the transfer request; transmitting the transfer request; responsive to transmitting the transfer request, receiving, a transfer message relating to the transfer request; responsive to receiving a transfer message, transmitting, the transfer message; and responsive to receiving a request to resolve the digital tag to an account number or token, resolving, the digital tag to the account number or token of the account; and transmitting the account number or token of the account e.g. commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim also relates to a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea.
Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, additional elements in bold, recite the abstract idea as follows.
assigning, by a digital tag computer, a receiver digital tag to a receiver account upon validating the receiver account with a first authorizing entity that generated the receiver account, wherein the receiver digital tag is a first unique digital tag that identifies the receiver account;
assigning, by the digital tag computer, a sender digital tag to a sender account upon validating the sender account with a second authorizing entity that generated the sender account, wherein the sender digital tag is a second unique digital tag that identifies the sender account;
receiving, by the digital tag computer from a first transfer application execution on a receiver user device associated with a receiver, a transfer request, wherein the transfer request comprises the receiver digital tag associated with the receiver, the sender digital tag associated with a sender, and a transfer amount;
generating, by the digital tag computer, a request identifier to be associated with the transfer request;
transmitting, by the digital tag computer to a second transfer application executing on a sender user device associated with the sender, the transfer request, wherein the transfer request further comprises the request identifier associated with the transfer request, wherein the first transfer application is managed by a first transfer application server that is different from a second transfer application server managing the second transfer application;
responsive to transmitting the transfer request, receiving, by the digital tag computer, a transfer message relating to the transfer request from the second transfer application executing on the sender user device; and
responsive to receiving the transfer message, transmitting, by the digital tag computer, the transfer message from the first transfer application executing on the receiver user device; and
responsive to receiving a request to resolve the receiver digital tag to an account number or token of the receiver account, resolving, by the digital tag computer, the receiver digital tag to the account number or token of the receiver account; and
transmitting, by the digital tag computer, the account number or token of the receiver account to the second transfer application.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of a digital tag computer, receiver user device and sender user device, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. The “receiving”, “transmitting” and “generating” steps can be completed through mental evaluation and manual means but for the nominal recitation of generic computing devices programmed to perform these steps. Receiving a transfer request comprising a digital tag and a transfer amount, generating a request identifier to be associated with the received transfer request, transmitting the transfer request, receiving a transfer message, and transmitting the transfer message is a business problem and an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as do claims 13 & 18.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements, (i.e. digital tag computer, receiver user device, sender user device, first transfer application server, and second transfer application server), do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. ¶¶ [17-18, 30-32, 48, 72-73, 78-79 & 85-86] of the specifications in the instant application), such that it amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the steps of receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as well as claims 13 & 18.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computing components to perform the
limitations steps amount no more than adding thew words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the
abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the steps of receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 13 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving a transfer request comprising a digital tag and a transfer amount, generating a request identifier to be associated with the received transfer request, transmitting the transfer request, receiving a transfer message, and transmitting the transfer message, e.g. following rules, without significantly more.
The dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 19-24 further narrow the abstract idea without providing significantly more. For instance, claims 2, 4-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 19-24 further refine the abstract idea with no additional elements. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete. Claims 3, 6 discloses a generic first and second transfer application server. The servers may not be the same but that does not mean they are an improvement to servers. Claims 7 & 19 disclose a generic mobile device/phone. Claim 8 discloses a generic processing network. Claims 10 and 14 discloses a generic server computer. Claim 15 discloses a generic database for storing information.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. business relation) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. mobile devices with display screens and processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction implement the abstract idea in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
For the above reasoning, claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696