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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is cancelled, claims 2-21 are presented, and claims 13 and 20 are amended. Claims 2-21 filed February 17, 2026 are pending, although claims 2-12 are withdrawn due to a restriction election, therefore claims 13-21 are hereby examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 13-21 in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims constitute a single general inventive concept that should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because claims 13-21 initiates transfers of loan payments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 13-19 are directed to a method, and claims 20-21 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory.
7. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 13 and 20 recite an abstract idea of techniques for secure transaction funding.
The independent claims 13 and 20 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
initiating a session with a consumer to enable… for access to a loan on…;
maintaining a consumer digital wallet identifier for a consumer digital wallet of the consumer;
initiating transfers of loan payments in accordance with terms of the loan from the consumer digital wallet to an FI digital wallet of the FI using the consumer digital wallet identifier of the consumer and a loan address for the loan on the BC;
detecting the FI logged into a session; and
providing the loan address for the loan to a smart contract on the BC responsive to detection of an account based on the FI being logged into the session.
8. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, techniques for secure transaction funding falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
9. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites secure transaction funding with generally recited computer elements such as a cloud processing environment, server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, blockchain, financial institution server, retail server, user interface, and device, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for secure transaction funding. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
10. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a cloud processing environment, user interface, server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, blockchain, financial institution server, retail server, and device, to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
11. Regarding dependent claims 14, 16, and 19, although the claims recite a generally recited user interface, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of techniques for secure transaction funding, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claim 15, although the claim recites a generally recited device, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of techniques for secure transaction funding, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 17 and 18, although the claims recite a generally recited blockchain, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of techniques for secure transaction funding, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claim 21, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of techniques for secure transaction funding, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
17. 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.
18. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
19. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
20. Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madisetti et al (US 2019/0228409) in view of Caldwell (US 2021/0241256).
21. Re Claims 13, 20: Madisetti discloses comprising:
a cloud processing environment comprising at least one server (see [0079] cloud services);
the at least one server comprising (see [0131] bulletin board server):
a processor (see [0085] fiat payment processor);
and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (see [0079] decentralized storage platforms and cloud storage resources);
the instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising (see [0085] fiat payment processor):
initiating a session with a consumer to enable, or providing a user interface for access to a loan on a blockchain (BC) to a financial institution (FI) server of an FI, a retail server of a retailer, and a device operated by a consumer (see [0100] loan smart contract on blockchain network);
maintaining a consumer digital wallet identifier for a consumer digital wallet of the consumer (see [0031] nCash mobile application wallet);
initiating transfers of loan payments in accordance with terms of the loan from the consumer digital wallet to an FI digital wallet of the FI using the consumer digital wallet identifier of the consumer and a loan address for the loan on the BC (see [0088] transfer to nCash network);
providing the loan address for the loan to a smart contract on the BC responsive to detection of an account based on the FI being logged into the session (see [0084] customer address sent).
However, Madisetti fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Caldwell teaches:
detecting the FI logged into a session (see [0134] detects access to server of financial institution or other third-party service);
maintaining an association between the FI and the loan with a plurality of other loans of the FI (see [0043], Fig. 14 chaining of loans);
detecting a login from an account associated with the FI (see [0134] detects access to server of financial institution or other third-party service);
presenting on a home screen within the user interface the loan, the plurality of other loans, and a current balance of an FI digital wallet of the FI responsive to detection of the login (see [0083, 0089, 0091] balance).
From the teaching of Caldwell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madisetti’s invention with Caldwell’s teaching of detecting a login in order for “… payment processing (see Caldwell Abstract).”
22. Re Claim 14: Madisetti discloses further comprising displaying, via the user interface, real-time updates of BC transactions related to the loan, including status updates on the loan payments and loan receipts (see [0159] updates variable and current value of variable).
23. Re Claim 15: Madisetti discloses further comprising:
automatically initiating the loan payments on a schedule predetermined according to the terms of the loan;
sending notifications of each payment initiation to the device operated by the consumer (see [0095] enforce loan terms, which would mean according to scheduled payment terms).
24. Re Claim 16: Madisetti discloses further comprising providing, via the user interface, functionality for adjusting the terms of the loan, subject to approval from the FI (see [0136] change in lending conditions).
25. Re Claim 17: Madisetti discloses further comprising configuring the smart contract on the BC to automatically update a loan balance on the consumer digital wallet and the FI digital wallet after each payment transfer (see [0107] updated on each loan repayment).
26. Re Claim 18: Madisetti discloses further comprising configuring the smart contract on the BC to verify an authenticity of the loan payments by checking a transaction associated with the consumer against the terms of the loan stored on the BC before recording the transaction (see [0100] verify physical assets as collateral until loan is paid).
27. Re Claim 19: Madisetti discloses further comprising logging each loan payment transfer in a transaction ledger on the BC, wherein the transaction ledger is accessible through the user interface (see [0089] distributed ledger which maintains records of all transactions).
28. Re Claim 21: Madisetti discloses wherein the operations further comprise: updating the terms of the loan on the smart contract in response to changes in the terms of the loan agreed upon by the consumer and the FI during a lifecycle of the loan (see [0088] updating token smart contract 510).
Examiner Notes
29. The Examiner suggests first mirroring all the independent claims similar to claim 20 (incorporate hardware elements of claim 20 into claim 13). The Examiner suggests clarifying the term loan address (address of what exactly). The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 14-15, 18-19, and 21 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests clarifying how all of the hardware elements are communicating with each other (sensors, cameras, memory, processors), and what kind of imaging processing is being used.
30. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are hereby maintained. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the new claim amendments are addressed above.
a) Argument #1: Claims do not recite a judicial exception because it is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and therefore not an abstract idea
32. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because it is directed to a specific technological solution. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are related to secure transaction funding, which would fall under certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Secure transaction funding is a form of marketing or sales activity or behavior, and is therefore an abstract idea.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improvement in technology)
33. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of a cloud processing environment, user interface, server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, blockchain, financial institution server, retail server, and device, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for secure transaction funding. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of secure transaction funding (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
34. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
35. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, the additional elements of a cloud processing environment, user interface, server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, blockchain, financial institution server, retail server, and device, i.e., that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of secure transaction funding. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., secure transaction funding, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
36. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of secure transaction funding. The applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. The applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
Conclusion
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gupta et al (Acceptance Towards Digital Payments and Improvements in Cashless Payment Ecosystem, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
38. 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).
39. 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.
40. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
41. 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.
42. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
43. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627