DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A Terminal Disclaimer was filed on 05/12/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In page 9, the applicant asserted that “[the] claims do not refer only to activity occurring on the mobile device . . . the second account itself has been remotely-created responsive to purchase using funds from the first account) of funds denominated in a second currency. . .” & “the mobile device through its cooperation with the system of which it is a part becomes automatically provisioned with an additional account module, enabling the mobile device itself to deploy that additional currency for subsequent purchase” (pg. 11). However, using the same mobile device to establish and create the second account does not advance any technological aspect. The concept is similar to making an international wire transfer where you could request to transfer, for example, an amount denominated in USD currency and request the second currency on receiving side to be denominated in Yen or Euro. While noting that the use of a mobile device helps to expedite the transaction (rather than having to show up at the bank branch), the use of a mobile application does not advance any technological aspects. The limitations, hence, are not indicative of integration into practical application: 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) (Prong Two – Step 2A).
Similarly, under Step 2B Prong Two, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-24 are directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-24 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. Claims 1-24 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1, 9, 17 are similar. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A mobile device comprising: a first account module in a processor-readable memory that is configured to a store a first account information associated with a first pre-established account, wherein the first pre-established account comprises funds denominated in a first currency; a user interface comprising a display device; and at least one computing device processor operatively connected to the processor-readable memory and the user interface and configured to: receive a first selection via the user interface of the first account module for at least a first transaction; responsive to the first selection, retrieve the first account information from the processor- readable memory and send the first account information using a first machine-readable code, from the mobile device to a first transaction machine to perform the first transaction, wherein the first transaction is conducted in the first currency to purchase funds denominated in a second currency, wherein the second currency is different from the first currency; for at least a second transaction in the second currency conducted subsequent to the first transaction, receive a second account information, the second account information associated with the second account, the second account information being electronically received by the mobile device after the second account is created, the second account being created remotely from the mobile device responsive to the first transaction machine confirming a completion of the first transaction, wherein the second account comprises the funds denominated in the second currency purchased during the first transaction and is accessible for subsequent transactions by the mobile device using the second account information; responsive to receiving the second account information, automatically configure a second account module in the processor-readable memory of the mobile device to store the second account information thereby to enable the mobile device to have access to the second account independently of the first account; receive a second selection via the user interface of the second account module for at least a second transaction; and responsive to the second selection, retrieve the second account information from the processor-readable memory and send the second account information using a second machine-readable code, from the mobile device to a second transaction machine to perform the second transaction using the funds denominated in the second currency.. These limitations are directed to perform currency exchanges – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a processor-readable memory, a mobile device, a user interface, a display device, a computing device processor, a user device, a user interface, a second transaction machine, a first machine readable code, a second machine readable code recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, generating, and configuring) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to compose a risk profile and purchase insurance based on such risk for a property is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2, 10, 18 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite transaction machines and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a first transaction machine, a second transaction machine, a non-transitory processor readable medium ) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite sending machine readable code from one device to another and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a first transaction machine, a second transaction machine, an NFC device, a mobile device, a machine-readable code, a non-transitory processor readable medium ) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) displaying machine-readable code for scanning between devices. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing device processor, a machine readable code, a display device, a scanner, a non-transitory processor readable medium) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 7, 15, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a process of determining a location of the device and displaying as option for selection because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a display device, a computing device processor, a non-transitory processor readable medium) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 8, 16, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a pre-established account because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, non-transitory processor readable medium) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
14. Therefore, Claims 1-24 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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 W. Anderson, can be reached on (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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693