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 action is in response to the amendment filed November 24, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Displaying the network transaction without displaying an indication of the intermediate transactions is not an improvement of the functioning of the user interface itself.
The generation of movement identifiers sounds more like data gathering than a technical solution. It sounds like a linked list of transactions where the movement identifier connects to each intermediate movement identifier as a chain of transactions. (Examiner’s note: was there a reason it was hard to gather that data? Or that it is not a fair way of looking at it?)
No arguments was made regarding the Bilski 101 rejection of claims 10-15 and they still contain no structural elements for that reason those claims are still rejected separately under Bilski.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Utility
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, these claims are held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), the Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos provides factors to consider in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea and is therefore not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Factors weighing toward eligibility include:
Recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
The claim is directed toward applying a law of nature.
The claim is more than a mere statement of concept.
Factors weighing against eligibility include:
No recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
Insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation.
The claim is not directed to an application of a law of nature.
The claim is a mere statement of a general concept.
An example of a method claim that would not qualify as a statutory process would be a claim that recited purely mental steps. Thus, to qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim could positively recite the other statutory class (the thing or product) to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state. Furthermore, the use of a particular machine or transformation of a particular article must involve more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
In light of the factors in the Supreme Court decision, Applicant’s method steps do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. It is a “computer-implemented method” that does not include a structural element such as a processor or memory in the body of the claim to implement the method. The processor from claim 1 could fix this particular problem.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 10–15), a machine (claims 1–9) and a manufacture (claims 16–20), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of “generate a secured credit card account corresponding to a secured deposit account and linked to a debit account for funding the secured deposit account;
receive a request to initiate a network transaction between the secured deposit account and an additional account;
generate a movement identifier for the network transaction;
initiate the network transaction as a secured deposit network transaction chain by: initiating a first intermediate transaction from the secured deposit account to the debit account utilizing the movement identifier; and
initiating a second intermediate transaction from the debit account to the additional account utilizing the movement identifier;
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., a financial transaction is a kind of contract).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor” and “display an indication of the network transaction by displaying a transaction between the secured deposit account and the additional account without displaying an indication of the first intermediate transaction or an indication of the second intermediate transaction” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); Independent claim 10 is nearly identical to independent claims 10 and 16 and so the analysis for claim 1 also applies to claims 10 and 16.
Dependent claims 2–9, 11–15, and 17–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 11, and 17 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe generating a second transaction following the pattern of the first transaction and providing the intermediate movement identifiers to a reporting server. Dependent claims 3, 12, and 18 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe displaying via a user interface of a client device associated with the secured deposit account and the debit account, an indication of the network transaction by displaying a transaction from the secured deposit account and the additional account without displaying the intermediate transactions. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe wherein displaying the transaction from the secured deposit account and the additional account comprises displaying the transaction without displaying the first intermediate transaction and the second intermediate transaction in the user interface of the client device. Gathering and displaying data are considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of mere data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Dependent claims 5, 13, and 20 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe “generate, utilizing a third-party risk analysis model, a risk prediction for the network transaction by reordering the first intermediate transaction and the second intermediate transaction; and initiating the network transaction as the secured deposit network transaction chain according to the risk prediction”. That is simply further describing the transaction and applying risk analysis at a generic level. Dependent claim 6 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 5 as it describes by generating risk scores for the second and first intermediate transaction. This is the type of generic component being used to carry out the abstract idea noted in claim 5. Dependent claim 7 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe reversing the network transaction which is just a more complicated transaction which is still abstract as a transaction. Dependent claim 8 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 7 as they describe generating an additional movement identifier for the additional movement transaction to use to initiate the transaction which is just a more complicated transaction which is still abstract as a transaction. Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 8 and 16 as they describe executing a transaction to reverse the transaction by generating an additional movement identifier for the additional movement transaction to use to initiate the transaction which is just a more complicated transaction which is still abstract as a transaction. Dependent claim 14 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 as they describe executing a transaction to reverse the transaction by generating an additional movement identifier for the additional movement transaction to use to initiate the transaction which is just a more complicated transaction which is still abstract as a transaction. Dependent claim 15 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14 as they describe initiating additional network transaction as an additional secured deposit network transaction chain which is just a more complicated transaction which is still abstract as a transaction.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art
Barrett (USPG 2019/0220,849 A1- teaches network transaction service
Fuentes et al. (USPG 2023/0394,478 A1) – teaches using a unified schema to conduct network transactions
Neither taught a “movement identifier” or an equivalent for the intermediate transactions needed to implement a transaction.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Scott S. Trotter, whose telephone number is 571-272-7366. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, M-F.
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 571-272-3955.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (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).
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-7366 (Draft Communications)
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696