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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that claims are not directed to abstract idea. Claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claim recite an improvement to storage architectures used to facilitate MBC exchange in an efficient secure, flexible and scalable manner. Claim recites technical solution herein can employ a dynamic architecture for facilitating MBC transfers that reduces processing load and prevents unnecessary exposure of sensitive key information. Further, claims provide the transaction security by preventing or bypassing key pair access for institutional MBC transfer between registered customers. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite processing a financial data which is an abstract idea. Claims do not require any technical functionality to be performed. Claims recite series of steps of storing amount in the database corresponding to the key pairs, receiving a token and determining the token is associated with an account, identifying a recipient public key, determining recipient has account with the bank based on identified public key, and update the database with the account information and storing total amount in the database, which is a process deals with commercial interaction such as processing a financial data. Further storing data utilizing a dual-storage architecture is not any technical improvement or technical solution. It is part of abstract idea of processing transaction information and storing the information. Additionally providing transaction security is part of the business process not a technical improvement
Claims are not directed to any technical improvement or integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as, first and second computing system, mobile wallet, overlay ledger, and processing circuit merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, first and second computing system, mobile wallet, overlay ledger and processing circuit perform the steps of storing amount in the database corresponding to the key pairs, receiving a token and determining the token is associated with an account, identifying a recipient public key, determining recipient has account with the bank based on identified public key, and update the database with the account information and storing total amount in the database. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to processing financial data. 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).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-20 have been examined.
Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled by the Applicant.
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, 3-10 and 12-20 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 the instant case, claims 1, 2-9, are directed to a method, claims 10, 12-18 are directed to a first computing system and claims 19-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage media. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite processing a financial data which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “maintaining…a plurality of public and private key pairs…; receiving…transaction token…; determining…transaction token is associated with…account based on information…; identifying…a recipient public key…; determining…the recipient account…; determining…account is registered…; updating…a first customer balance indicated by a first entry…; and …redeploying at least a portion of a total amount…”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of storing amount in the database corresponding to the key pairs, receiving a token and determining the token is associated with an account, identifying a recipient public key, determining recipient has account with the bank based on identified public key, and update the database with the account information and storing total amount in the database which is a process that deals with commercial interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, first and second computing system, mobile wallet, overlay ledger, and processing circuit merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, first and second computing system, mobile wallet, overlay ledger and processing circuit perform the steps of storing amount in the database corresponding to the key pairs, receiving a token and determining the token is associated with an account, identifying a recipient public key, determining recipient has account with the bank based on identified public key, and update the database with the account information and storing total amount in the database. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of first and second computing system, mobile wallet, overlay ledger and processing circuit, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of processing a financial data. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, first and second computing system, mobile wallet, overlay ledger and processing circuit perform the steps of storing amount in the database corresponding to the key pairs, receiving a token and determining the token is associated with an account, identifying a recipient public key, determining recipient has account with the bank based on identified public key, and update the database with the account information and storing total amount in the database. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing a financial data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of processing a financial data. Specifically, claims 3-4, 6, 12-13, 15 describing the storing and updating stored data, which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 5, 14, further describing the transferring of amount between account which is part of the abstract idea of processing a transaction. Claims 7-9, 16-18 and 20 describing verifying the transaction which is part of the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “determining by the first computing system based at least in part of the recipient public key, the recipient account is registered with the first computing system”. However, this limitation was not described in the specification.
Specification discloses: In the method responsive to determining that the recipient public key is registered with the financial institution computing system, updating a ledger that lists a MBC balance of the MBC account of the recipient and the ledger that lists the MBC balance of the customer. (See specification paragraph 0005). Specification does not disclose determining based on recipient public key that the recipient account is registered with the first computing system.
Claims 3-9, 12-18 and 20 are also rejected as each depends from claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively.
Conclusion
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 ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights