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
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17 and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant indicates disagreement with the Office’s indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The Office asserts that the applicant does not provide any substantial argument to the contrary and therefore this disagreement is moot.
Applicant argues the claims recite a practical application which address a technical problem preventing non-native and hybrid systems from registering accounts with desired transfer tags. The claims create a tag-based identifier that the transfer service system is configured to recognize, and store an association between the account and both the transfer tag and the tag-based identifier, providing operability between computing systems.
The Office asserts that it is unclear how operability between computing systems, which allegedly did not previously exist, by creating a tag-based identifier (a string of data). Without further clarification this argument is unpersuasive because the claims merely recite the creation of this identifier but do not recite how the identifier creates operability between the systems.
Applicant argues the claims are similarly eligible under Step 2B.
The Office asserts that this argument is likewise unpersuasive.
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.
Claim1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17 and 20 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):
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a provider computing system configured to process an e-mail address as an identifier of an account of a user, a desired transfer tag from a user device;
performing, by the provider computing system, a tag conversion process on the desired transfer tag to create a desired-tag-based identifier corresponding to the desired transfer tag, wherein performing the tag conversion process comprises appending a tag-related domain to the desired transfer tag to create the desired-tag-based identifier, the tag-related domain being an e-mail domain and the desired-tag-based identifier being at least part of the e-mail address;
subsequent to performing the tag conversion process, verifying, by the provider computing system, an availability of both the desired transfer tag and the desired-tag-based identifier by communicating the desired-tag-based identifier to a transfer service computing system, wherein the tag-related domain of the desired-tag-based identifier is configured to be recognized by the transfer service computing system and allows for the transfer service computing system to confirm the availability of both the desired transfer tag and the desired-tag- based identifier; and
registering, by the provider computing system, the account of the user associated with the user device for a transfer service provided by the transfer service computing system using the desired-tag-based identifier based on the desired tag and the desired tag-based identifier being available, wherein registering the account causes the transfer service computing system to store, in an identifier database, an association between the account of the user and both the desired transfer tag and the desired-tag-based identifier.
The underlined elements of the claim represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions related to sales activities or managing personal behavior or interactions between people including social activities because the registration of the tag-based identifier is for a transfer service.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations comprise adding the words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea. The additional limitations being the provider computer system, user device, and transfer service computing system, all of which are generically recited and perform generically recited tasks. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely comprise the abstract idea with the words "apply it". Claims 9 and 17 are similarly rejected.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and, as a whole and in combination the claims comprise only the abstract idea and the words “apply it”.
Claim 5 narrows the abstract idea by appending further process steps regarding the request for a current tag-related domain.
Claim 8 narrows the abstract idea by including process steps for generating a transfer request to initiate a transfer of resources.
Claims 9, 13, 16, 17 and 20 are similarly rejected.
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 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
Prosecution Insights