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
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, and 13-14 have been amended. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the code scanning device, scanning an identification code when displayed on a mobile terminal is not an abstract idea.
The Office asserts that the limitation in question recites “obtain a payment order of an institution member”. Using these devices to obtain a payment order can be
considered an abstract idea and adding the words “apply it” or can also be considered insignificant extrasolution activity such as data gathering.
Applicant argues the scanning device is a particular machine.
The Office asserts that the applicant fails to disclose the particularity of the scanning device and therefore the argument is moot.
Applicant argues the particularity of the code scanning device is confirmed by the fact that the device is configured by the merchant.
The Office asserts that the specification does not disclose what the configuring entails. For example, a user may configure a cell phone by adding contacts, apps, etc., but the cell phone does not then become a particular device. The specification discloses a code scanning device but does not include any further details of the device therefore, the device cannot be considered particular.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
An entrusted withholding processing method, comprising:
Scanning, by a code scanning device configured by a merchant, a reimbursement code according to an access request submitted by a mobile terminal to obtain a payment order of an institution member, the code scanning device being configured to scan the reimbursement code when displayed on a mobile terminal;
performing expense control verification on the payment order of the institution member based on an expense control rule configured for the reimbursement code of an institution;
upon determining that the expense control verification is passed, detecting whether the reimbursement code is bound to a fund account opened by the institution on a financial platform; and
upon determining that the reimbursement code is bound to the fund account opened by the institution on the financial platform, generating an entrusted withholding request of the payment order, and submitting the entrusted withholding request to the financial platform, to perform entrusted withholding processing of the payment order based on the fund account.
The underlined portions of the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions including sales activities since the claims are directed to the processing of a payment order.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations include a code scanning device, identification code, mobile terminal, a financial platform, and a system generically recited, amounting to adding the words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the reasons presented above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and adds additional elements representing adding the words “apply it”, or the like, such as a bill application link, and an e-bill. As a whole, and in combination, the claims comprise an abstract idea with the words “Apply it”, or the like.
Claims 13 and 14 include the recited abstract idea above and include additional limitations including a device comprising a processor and non-transitory storage medium executed by a processor and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694