DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Double patenting rejections remain outstanding and are repeated below.
Applicant’s representative states that the claims as now amended recite operations performed by
particular hardware components of an ATM. Applicant’s representative then argues that:
the amendment now impose meaningful bounds on the claims by requiring specific machine operations optical scanning of a QR code displayed on a mobile device by an ATM scanner, verification of the scanned indicia against stored data, and physical cash dispensing by the ATM hardware.
In response, functions of scanning a code displayed on a user device is not a measure of a significantly more which imposes meaningful bounds on the claims because most devices contain a scanner for scanning barcodes and QR codes. A scanner or providing a scanning function here as claimed relates to a scanner performing its expected functions. The results of a scanned code (from a barcode or QR code) would reveal or retrieve data contained or embedded in the code which are to be used as a form of data gathering to be applied in performing a task or function.
The mere recitation of a processor or computing device or having a scanner to a QR code to perform business functions is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible form. For example, the Internet having web pages to present or to gather or provide data is a tool to facilitate any intended activities via a generic computer processor.
The receipt or presentment and determining and the communicating or sending of data are routine generic computer functions. The instant claims recite no physical structural details of the computing device or sensor or a server, computer, processor or a computerized system or data processor or user device to accomplish the intended functions. The claims are not tied to any specific automated computer apparatus. Specific means, structures or computer elements that perform each of the functions are not explicitly recited.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not improve (1) the data processor or scanner itself, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; or (3) use the computer or processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
Applicant’s representative then argues: the amended claims represent an unconventional technical arrangement that provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
In response, these functions of the scanner and the processors are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed as of their expected and conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' .. . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming").
The claimed functions of “receive or receiving”, “scan or scanning“, “generate or generating” and “transmit or transmitting” are generic and conventional functions. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The recitation of a processor, user device and scanner in the claim does not represent significantly more than an abstract idea. "[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Alice.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The rejection of the claims as now amended is found below.
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 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
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.
Claim 41 and 59 are directed to a method. Claim 50 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls into one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
The abstract idea is shown absent of the bolded limitations.
Claim 41 recites:
An automated method of processing a virtual money order transaction, comprising: generating, by a money order transaction data processor, a virtual money order having
associated virtual money order information accessible over a network via a network address specific to the virtual money order;
transmitting, by the money order transaction data processor to a first user device associated with a first user, a money order notification including the network address;
upon the first user device accessing the first network address, receiving, by the money order transaction data processor from the first user device a request to receive the virtual money order information comprising authentication information for a user of the first user device;
authenticating, an authorization processor, the request to receive the virtual money order;
generating a quick response code corresponding to the virtual money order information;
displaying, upon authenticating the request, the quick response code to the first user device; and
transmitting, by the money order transaction data processor to the first user device, the virtual money order information based upon a verification of the quick response code, wherein the virtual money order information includes unique redemption indicia that enables each dispensing from an automated teller machine upon verification of the unique redemption indicia;
scanning by a scanner of the automated teller machine, the quick response code, displayed on the first user device; and
responsive to the automated teller machine verifying the unique redemption indicia against stored virtual money order data, dispensing cash from the automated teller machine.
.
Claim 42 recites: receiving, by the money order transaction data processor from a second user device associated with a second user, a virtual money order purchase request, the request including identification of the first user as a virtual money order payee, a money order amount, and second user payment information.
Claim 43 recites: transferring, by the money order transaction data processor, a payment amount from an account of the second user to a transaction processor account, the payment amount being equal to or greater than the money order amount.
Claim 44 recites: establishing, by an account registration data processor, a first money order account for the first user.
Claim 45 recites: wherein the request to receive the virtual money order information includes first user authorization information.
Claim 46 recites: verifying, by an authorization data processor using the first user authorization information, that the first user is authorized to receive the virtual money order information.
Claim 47 recites: wherein the action of transmitting, by the money order transaction data processor to the first user device, the virtual money order information, occurs in responsive to a positive verification that the first user is authorized to receive the virtual money order information.
Claim 48 recites: receiving, by a money order redemption data processor, a request from a redemption requester to redeem the virtual money order, the request from the redemption requester including at least a portion of the money order information.
Claim 49 recites wherein the network address is a network address to which the first user navigates to view, or obtain redemption information for the virtual money order.
Claim 50 recites: An automated virtual money order processing system comprising a money order transaction data processor configured to:
generate a virtual money order having associated virtual money order information accessible over a network via a network address specific to the virtual money order;
transmit to a first user device associated with a first user, a money order notification including the network address;
upon the first user device accessing the first network address, receive from the first user device, a request to receive the virtual money order information comprising authentication information for a user of the first user device;
authenticate, by an authorization processor, the request to receive the virtual money order;
generate a quick response code corresponding to the virtual money order information;
display, upon authenticating the request, the quick response code to the first user device; and
transmit to the first user device, the virtual money order information based on a verification of the quick response code, wherein the virtual money order information includes unique redemption indicia that enables cash dispensing from an automated teller machine upon verification of the unique redemption indicia;
scan by a scanner of the automated teller machine, the quick response code, displayed on the first user device; and
responsive to the automated teller machine verifying the unique redemption indicia against stored virtual money order data, dispensing cash from the automated teller machine.
Claim 51 recites: the request to receive the virtual money order information includes first user authorization information; and
the automated virtual money order processing system further comprises an authorization data processor configured to verify, using the first user authorization information, that the first user is authorized to receive the virtual money order information.
Claim 52 recites: wherein the first user authorization information includes at least one form of user-specific identification that is unique to the first user and that is associated with a first user money order account of the first user.
Claim 53 recites: comprising a money order redemption data processor configured to receive a request to redeem the virtual money order, the request including at least a portion of the money order information, and process a transfer of the money order amount from a transaction processor account to the redemption requester.
Claim 54 recites: comprising an account registration data processor configured to assign a first unique public key and a first unique private key to a first money order account of the first user.
Claim 55 recites: wherein the money order transaction data processor is further configured to: generate unique graphic indicia for inclusion in the virtual money order information, the unique graphic indicia being required for redemption of the virtual money order, and process a transfer of the money order amount based on at least a portion of the money order information including the unique graphic indicia.
Claim 56 recites: further comprising a money order redemption data processor configured to: receive a request to redeem the virtual money order, the request including purported redemption indicia, and responsive to a determination that the purported redemption indicia matches a unique redemption indicia of the virtual money order, transmit an instruction to redeem the virtual money order.
Claim 57 recites: further comprising a transaction processor of a financial institution, the transaction processor being configured to: receive, from the first user device, a request to redeem the virtual money order, transmit, to a money order redemption data processor, the request to redeem the virtual money order, responsive to receiving an instruction to redeem the virtual money order from the order redemption data processor, transfer cash in the virtual money order amount to the first user.
Claim 58 recites: wherein the money order transaction data processor is further configured to: process, using the second user payment information, a payment transaction to transfer a payment amount from an account of the second user to a transaction processor account, the payment amount being equal to or greater than the money order amount.
Claim 59 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a money order transaction data processor, cause the money order transaction data processor to: generate a virtual money order having associated virtual money order information accessible over a network via a network address specific to the virtual money order;
transmit to a first user device associated with a first user, a money order notification including the network address;
upon the first user device accessing the first network address, receive from the first user device, a request to receive the virtual money order information comprising authentication information for a user of the first user device;
authenticate, by an authorization processor, the request to receive the virtual money order;
generate a quick response code corresponding to the virtual money order information;
display, upon authenticating the request, the quick response code to the first user device; and
transmit to the first user device, the virtual money order information based on a verification of the quick response code, wherein the virtual money order information includes unique redemption indicia that enables cash dispensing from an automated teller machine upon verification of the unique redemption indicia;
scan by a scanner of the automated teller machine, the quick response code, displayed on the first user device; and
responsive to the automated teller machine verifying the unique redemption indicia against stored virtual money order data, dispensing cash from the automated teller machine.
Claim 60 recites: wherein the instructions further cause the money order transaction data processor to: generate unique graphic indicia for inclusion in the virtual money order information, the unique graphic indicia being required for redemption of the virtual money order and comprising a quick response (QR) code, and process a transfer of the money order amount based on at least a portion of the money order information including the unique graphic indicia.
Here, the claimed concept also falls into the category of grouping of abstract ideas a certain method of organizing human activity such as performing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describes functions of :
“generating, a virtual money order having associated virtual money order information, transmitting, to a first user a money order notification including the network address, generate a quick response code corresponding to the virtual money order, and transmitting, to the first user, the virtual money order information, based on a verification of the quick response code, wherein the virtual money order information includes unique redemption indicia that enables cash dispensing from an automated teller machine upon verification of the unique redemption indicia”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations found above as understood to be additional limitations:
The claimed limitations describing functions of generating a virtual money order and transmitting the virtual money order information based on a verification of a quick response code to a first user, merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or processor or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract function ( see MPEP 2106.05(1) ). Also, see the applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and “any kind of digital computer” including generic commercially available computers or processors or devices.
Performance of receiving and transmitting data by a computer or processor amounts to performing steps which amount to data gathering and an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP Z106.05(g).
Performing steps by generic computer processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Reciting a data processor or a transaction processor is understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by a data processor or a transaction processor receives data, generates data and transmits data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of operation of generating a virtual money order and transmitting to a user, virtual money order information related to the virtual money order.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim but merely recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements of a processor, a network address and a user device with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving data and transmitting data by electronic means or hardware amount to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir.
2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Transmitting data amounts to an insignificant post solution activity.
Positively reciting a computer processor and a network address as found in claims 41 and 50 and 59 does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer, and as they are recited at a high level of generality.
These claimed elements also as found in some of the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving data, generating data and transmitting data which are performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors”, “user device” with a network address are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 41, 50 and 59 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea with a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
Claims 41-60 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,592. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-60 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '592 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '592 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 41-60 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '592 patent.
Claims 41-60 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,282,046. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-60 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '046 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '046 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 41-60 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '046 patent.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“generating, a virtual money order having associated virtual money order information,
transmitting, to a first user a money order notification including the network address, generate a quick response code corresponding to the virtual money order, and transmitting, to the first user, the virtual money order information, based on a verification of the quick response code, wherein the virtual money order information includes unique redemption indicia that enables cash dispensing from an automated teller machine upon verification of the unique redemption indicia” as recited in independent claims 41, 50 and 59.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
February 17, 2026