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
Applicant filed an amendment on 2/20/26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 were pending and remain. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: By amendment “sources of funds” is followed by “a source of funds”, “the determined source”, “the source” and “the source”. Here the antecedent basis for source is not clear. A source of funds should be followed by the source of funds etc. For example “sources of funds” should be followed by determining “the sources of funds”, however, “ “the determined source” is this “the determined source of funds” etc. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the term source will be treated generically as sources of funds.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims and all are statutory classes, Method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium respectively. (Step 1 Yes)
The examiner has identified claim 1 as the exemplary claim.
The claims which are directed to real time peer to peer payment systems under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity which is a fundamental economic practice. (payments between peers)
In this case the invention is directed to real time funds transfer between parties by generic computing elements.
The abstract elements include;
receiving, by …. from a third-party … associated with the third-party over a real-time data channel, transfer information and a first token comprising sender information of a sender and a second token comprising receiver information of a receiver, wherein each of the first token and the second token comprises routing information comprising content associated with the transfer information; by
comparing each of the first token and the second token to a registration table comprising registered tokens to determine one or more of: sender and receiver endpoints, sources of funds associated with the sender, or whether a real-time transfer is available; and responsive to determining a source of funds associated with the sender, analyzing the determined source to determine a type of the source; based on determining the type of the source, transmitting,
processing, by the …., the first token and the second token using the content associated with the transfer information; transmitting, by … to a first financial institution … over the real-time data channel, a request for a guarantee; receiving, by the real-time payment system from the first … over the real-time data channel, an issued guarantee in exchange for a fee, wherein the issued guarantee comprises a guarantee of an availability of funds; forwarding, by the real-time payment system to a second … over the real-time data channel, the issued guarantee in exchange for the fee; receiving, by the real-time payment system from the second … over the real-time data channel, an acceptance of the issued guarantee in exchange for the fee; in response to receiving the acceptance of the issued guarantee, transferring, by the real-time payment system, funds based on at least one of the transfer information, the first token, or the second token; and transmitting, by the real-time payment system to the third-party …, a transfer confirmation.
The computing components include Real time payment system, (third party) device, financial institution computing systems (first and second)
The recitation of generic computing components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8, and 15 are similar to claim 1.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of Real time payment system, (third party) device, financial institution computing systems (first and second)
The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Thus they are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements known as “inventive concept” to result in significantly more. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer will not change the analysis when considered separately or as an ordered combination. (Step 2B)
Claims 2-7, and 9-14, 16-20 do not add further elements except for claims 7,14, 20 which include an interface which may be helpful though not by itself.
The general inventive idea is basically real time funds transfer vs an ACH transfer. However, on review of the specification it appears that the specification is written to use generically recited computing elements. The examiner finds a network, network interface. Applicant might be able to incorporate a specialized interface and additional network/computing elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Tumminaro 20070255652 in view of US Patent Publication to Randazza 20150006305
As per claim 1 Tumminaro discloses; 1. A method of performing a peer-to-peer (P2P) transfer by a third-party, the method comprising:
receiving, by a real-time payment system from a third-party device associated with the third-party over a real-time data channel, Tumminaro (fig. 11,)
transfer information
comparing each of the
to a registration table (0027)
first token and the second token
comprising registered tokens to determine one or more of: sender and receiver endpoints, (per the spec these appear to be sender or receiver, 0374, 0375 parties)
sources of funds associated with the sender, or whether a real-time transfer is available; and responsive to determining a source of funds associated with the sender, analyzing the determined source to determine a type of the source; based on determining the type of the source, transmitting, Tumminaro(0244, 0107)
and
transmitting, by the real-time payment system to a first financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, a request for a guarantee; receiving, by the real-time payment system from the first financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, Tumminaro(0165, guaranteed funds)
an issued guarantee in exchange for a fee , wherein the issued guarantee comprises a guarantee of an availability of funds; forwarding, by the real-time payment system to a second financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, Tumminaro(0165); “fee” [0229,]
the issued guarantee in exchange for the fee; (0238-44) receiving, by the real-time payment system from the second financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, an acceptance of the issued guarantee in exchange for the fee; Tumminaro(0312, fees for transactions, in regards to the bolded, Tuminaro charges a fee to underwrite the transaction in real time, by doing so the funds are guaranteed, 0244, 0233 0238 for fee)
in response to receiving the acceptance of the issued guarantee, transferring, by the real-time payment system, funds based on at least one of the transfer information, the first token, or the second token; and transmitting, by the real-time payment system to the third-party device, a transfer confirmation.
Tumminaro(0312)
Tumminaro does not explicitly disclose what Randazza teaches;
a first token comprising sender information of a sender and a second token comprising receiver information of a receiver, wherein each of the first token and the second token comprises routing information comprising content associated with the transfer information;
processing, by the real-time payment system, the first token and the second token using the content associated with the transfer information;
Randazza(0019-22, it is noted that applicant support is directed to transactions see applicant spec. 120 and further the routing as best can be understood is essentially a routing number, thus Randazza teaches transactions between parties using ACH routing, using payment tokens, for example “content associated with the routing information” appears to be claiming a transaction between parties using the routing information)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the funds transfer disclosure of Tumminaro with the token teachings of Randazza for the motivation of combining known financial payment concepts, related to “payment systems in the a retail environment”. (0004)
Claims 8, 15 are similar to claim 1.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Tumminaro discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the sender information identifies the sender previously authenticated by a third-party website of the third-party, and wherein the receiver information identifies the receiver previously authenticated by the third-party website of the third-party. Tumminaro(0442)
As per claims 3, 10 and 17 Tumminaro discloses; money transfer
the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a sender endpoint, a receiver endpoint, and a demand deposit account of the sender based on cross-referencing a registration table (0182)
However the use of tokens is taught by Randazza (0022)
The motivation for the combination would be similar to that provided for claims 1, 8 and 15
As per claim 4, 11, Tumminaro discloses;
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the real-time payment system, real-time transfer is available and a demand deposit account of the sender is available for P2P fund transfers.
Tumminaro (0025)
As per claims 5, 12, 19Tumminaro discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprising validating, by the real-time payment system, … based on verifying both the sender and the receiver are registered with the real-time payment system.
Tumminaro (tokens are known 0015)
However the use of tokens is taught by Randazza (0022)
The motivation for the combination would be similar to that provided for claims 1, 8 and 15
As per claims 7, 14 and 20 Tumminaro discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the third-party is a non-banking entity and the third-party device communicates over the real-time data channel via an application programming interface (API) provided by the real-time payment system.
Tumminaro(fig.3, 5, obo pay is the 3rd party)
As per claims 6, 13 and 18 Tumminaro discloses;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the real-time payment system to the second financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, transfer information comprising a sender endpoint, a receiver endpoint, and a demand deposit account of the sender.
Tumminaro(0023)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 2/20/26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 were pending and remain. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 101
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without more.
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity as the Office Action alleges. (see Office Action, page 24). For example, Applicant submits that "processing, by the real-time payment system, the first token and the-
second token using the content associated with the transfer information by: comparing each of the first token and the second token to a registration table comprising registered tokens to determine one or more of: sender and receiver endpoints, sources of funds associated with the sender, or whether a real-time transfer is available; and responsive to determining a source of funds associated with the sender, analyzing the determined source to determine a type of the source," and "based on determining the type of the source, transmitting, by the real-time payment system to a first financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, a request for a guarantee" as recited in amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a method of organizing human activity. For example, comparing tokens to a registration table and using the information identified in the registration table is not a method of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong One.
Here while registration tables might not be methods of organizing human activity, the subcategory of organizing human activity includes fundamental economic practice which may include payments and likewise commercial or legal interactions… in the form of contracts. Thus, applicant should focus on the technical improvement aspect. It is also noted that the registration table appears to be “one or more” and “associated with the sender or whether a real time transfer is available… “ broadly may be one of and then “or” only one side of the or which tends to broaden the interpretation.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract feature into a practical application. For example, claim 1 recites "processing, by the real-time payment system, the first token and the second token using the content associated with the transfer information by: comparing each of the first token and the second token to a registration table comprising registered tokens to determine one or more of: sender and receiver endpoints, sources of funds associated with the sender, or whether a real-time transfer is available; and responsive to determining a source of funds associated with the sender, analyzing the determined source to determine a type of the source," and "based on determining the type of the source, transmitting, by the real-time payment system to a first financial institution computing system over the real- time data channel, a request for a guarantee." As such, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the first and second tokens are processed specifically by comparing the information in the tokens to information in a registration table. Without the particular information stored in the tokens also being stored in the registration table, the processes recited in claim 1 would not be able to be performed. As such, the claims are confirmed to a particular solution and therefore, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
Here the practical application would be in the interpretation of the examiner. This argument would generally not be persuasive.
Additionally, Applicant submits that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. For example, the claims provide an improvement to real-time processing of transactions. Paragraph [0122] of the specification states that "The described systems may utilize faster, more accurate processing than current financial computing systems to facilitate guaranteed transactions in a faster and more secure manner, which addresses the long transaction times of current financial computing systems."
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.
This argument would be persuasive but it does not appear that the manner in which the computer makes the transaction faster is highlighted. In 0132 of applicant specification it appears that separating NIT transactions may make the process faster…. Applicant should consider this line of reasoning.
Step 2B
Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2B for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two. For example, the additional elements provide significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims are confined to the particular solution of processing tokens by comparing the information in the tokens to information in a registration table.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2B.
Here the examiner identified a process to improve the computer though claiming of 0132 paragraph content. However, doing so might require further search/consideration.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0255653 ("Tumminaro") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0006305 ("Randazza").
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of claim 1. Specifically, Tumminaro fails to disclose at least "forwarding, by the real-time payment system to a second financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, the issued guarantee in exchange for the fee" or "receiving, by the real-time payment system from the second financial institution computing system over the real-time data channel, an acceptance of the issued guarantee in exchange for the fee" as recited in claim 1.
The Office Action cites to paras. [0165] and [0312], respectively, of Tumminaro as
disclosing these features. However, Tumminaro does not appear to disclose a forwarding of a guarantee or acceptance of a guarantee in exchange for a fee. For example, Tumminaro at paragraph [0165] merely states that "[o]ne advantage of the present invention arises from the security of not accepting cash and guaranteed funds versus a check." Thus, Tumminaro discloses that guaranteed funds may exist as an alternative to a check, but does not actually disclose forwarding a guarantee or receiving an acceptance of an issued guarantee as recited in claim 1.
Randazza fails to cure the deficiencies of Tumminaro. Accordingly, the references fail to disclose the features of claim 1. Reconsideration of withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 is respectfully requested.
Here the examiner has reviewed the totality of Tumminaro and applicant amendment. Initially on review of the amendment, it appears that applicant utilizes “or” as a choice of one side of the or. On review of Tumminaro, it appears that a fee may be charged but admittedly it is a low fee to effectively guarantee the funds. (0596) For example in 0244, the funds are guaranteed all the way through. Thus while the fee is small, the system of Tumminaro provides a system of guaranteed funds in exchange for a fee that essentially guarantees the funds. However, (023) the fees might be low or waived for some transactions.
Thus in view of the use of “or” the examiner believes this argument is not persuasive. However, the examiner recommends tightening up the “or” and “one or more” language of the amendment. Then focus on the identified 0132 aspect of the specification where it was noted that the system be faster by separating NIT transactions. The combination of these changes should move the case forward.
Conclusion
The prior art from IP.com is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blockchain-based payment collection supervision system using pervasive Bitcoin digital wallet, IEEE 2017
A Survey of Payment Approaches for Identity Federations in Focus of the SAML Technology, IEEE 2013
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693