DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a THIRD CONTINUATION application which claims priority to the parent Application, U.S. Patent Application No. 15/256,484, now U.S. Patent No. 10,504,099.
No IDS has been submitted in this Application.
Claims 1 - 20 are pending and examined as follows:
NOTE: interviews are welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form, the link for which can be found at the end of this action, to schedule the interview.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A. Rejection Based on Abstract Idea
Claims 1 - 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. Furthermore, this rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
B. Statutory Categories
Claim 1 is a method Claim and therefore falls into the category of process. Claim 11 is a system Claim and also recites a database and a processor and a memory. This Claim therefore falls into the category of machine/manufacture. Claim 18 recites a non-transitory CRM and also falls into the category of machine/manufacture.
C. The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 is illustrative of the rejection of all claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
“5staging information for a money transfer transaction, wherein the staging information comprises: information that identifies at least two senders, information that identifies a receiving party, and a transaction amount;”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a method of organizing human activity, specifically, fundamental economic principles or practices. That is, analyzing this limitation in the context of the claim as a whole, it recites a process that falls within the grouping of abstract ideas comprising certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamental economic principles or practices are examples of such methods. In this case, the fundamental economic principle or practice is the common practice of staging a financial transaction – such as a payment – among multiple payors. This common practice occurs millions of times every day in the financial arena.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of terms - such as “database” or “processor,” or “memory” - does not remove the claim from the category of common or abstract methods of organizing human activity.
Thus, Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, namely, an abstract idea.
D. The Claim Does Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Moreover, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The possible “additional limitations” recited in the Claim that must be considered are as follows:
determining, by the first device, an amount of funds received from the at least two senders to fund the money transfer transaction,
wherein each of the at least two senders provides at least a portion of the funds;
verifying, by the first device, whether the amount of the funds received from the at least two senders is greater than or equal to the transaction amount; and
in response to a verification that the amount of funds received from the at least two senders is greater than or equal to the transaction amount, initiating the money transfer transaction to provide at least a portion of the transaction amount to the receiving party.
No additional computer components are mentioned in these limitations, and those quoted above are recited at a high level of generality. No other particular computer functions or computer component interactions within this system are recited. Determining amounts of funds to be transferred, comparing them, and verifying information relating to the transfer are among the most common and generic computer functions. This is what computers do. There is no specificity nor special functionality assigned to these steps in the claim.
Analyzing these additional limitations individually, and taking the claim as a whole and as an ordered combination, it is clear that these additional limitations do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. They do not improve the functioning of the computer system itself. In fact, there are very few computerized system components or functions recited. Thus, these limitations fail to recite with specificity any technical function or any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself – if any. Therefore, the claim lacks the specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only an outcome or a result – staging a multi-party money transfer - to one claiming a specific way of achieving that outcome or result.
Accordingly, the recitation of these generic components amounts to no more than mere instructions “to apply” the abstract idea exception using generic computer components. That is, the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) have been evaluated to determine whether those additional elements, considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. They do not.
E. Step 2B: The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
This step involves the search for an “inventive concept.” However, it is clear from the case law and the MPEP that the considerations at issue are the same as those considered above with respect to the analysis of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) – (c) and (e). In other words, these analyses sharply overlap.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, the identified additional limitations do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible under §101. The other independent claims are, likewise, ineligible for the same reasons as they are virtually identical to Claim 10.
F. The Dependent Claims Do Not Recite Meaningful Additional Limitations
Similarly, Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1 by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1. Like Claim 1, this claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 merely recites the abstract concept of aggregation of payment amounts.
Claim 3 merely recites the abstract concept of multiple payors paying the same amount.
Claim 4 merely recites the abstract concept of payors paying a different amount.
Claim 5 merely recites the abstract concept of a payor profile.
Claim 6 merely recites the abstract concept of providing information for the staged payment.
Claim 7 merely recites the abstract concept of providing information about the payment.
Claim 8 merely recites the abstract concept of an administrator.
Claim 9 merely recites the abstract concept of an identifier.
Claim 10 merely recites the abstract concept of scheduling a recurring payment.
Claims 11 - 20 are virtually identical to various of the aforementioned claims and are ineligible for the same reasons as set forth above.
None of these claims provide any additional meaningful limitations, non-generic computer components, or specific assignments of functionality among those components. Likewise, if at all, these claims recite only generic, computer-related limitations which are recited at such a high level of generality as to be devoid of any meaningful limitations. These limitations do not recite improvements in the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, constitute only a mere instruction to “apply” the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1 - 20 constitute ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0166454 to Bulawa et al. (hereinafter “Bulawa) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0039499 to Christophersen et al. (hereinafter “Christophersen”)
Applicant should be very familiar with the Bulawa reference as it has been cited and discussed in previous prosecutions.
The title of Bulawa is: Receiver driven money transfer alert system
The Abstract reads as follows:
“A method for performing a money transfer initiated by a receiver of the money transfer, wherein the method includes receiving a money transfer initiation request from the receiver and the money transfer initiation request includes an amount of funds to be transferred, receiver information, and sender information. The method also includes staging a money transfer transaction after receiving the money transfer initiation request, wherein the money transfer transaction is pending an authorization by the sender to fund the money transfer. The method further includes providing the sender with a notification of the money transfer transaction, receiving the authorization to fund the money transfer transaction, and executing the money transfer to transfer the funds from the sender to the receiver..” (emphasis added)
Thus, Bulawa is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention – multi-party payment transactions. This is very evident from the teachings of Bulawa:
“[0046] FIG. 2 illustrates another block diagram of a money transfer system 200 for performing receiver initiated money transfers. The money transfer system 200 may include one or more similar components to system 100 such as the money transfer host system 250, a plurality of communication devices 212 that the receiver 202 and/or sender(s) 205a may use to communicate with the money transfer host system 250, a communication interface (not shown), processor (not shown), etc. FIG. 2 specifically shows the receiver 202 communicating with the money transfer host system 250 to initiate one or more money transfer transactions that request that a plurality of senders 205a-c provide funds for the one or more money transfer transactions. The plurality of senders 205a-c may likewise communicate with the money transfer host system 120 via a variety of communication device (blocks 205a-c show communication through a mobile device 205a, the internet 205b, and an agent 205c) to either accept (authorize) to provide funds or deny to provide funds. The money transfer initiation request may be a request for the plurality of senders 205a-c to fund a single money transfer transaction or may be a request that the plurality of senders 205a-c fund a plurality of money transfer transactions (e.g., a request that sender 205a fond a first money transfer transaction while senders 205be fund a second money transfer transaction).” (Emphasis Added)
See also [0057] and [0062].
Thus, Fig. 2 is illustrative of these teachings:
PNG
media_image1.png
422
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Bulawa clearly relates to multi-sender or multi-payor staged transaction systems. Staging and a transaction identifier are taught as follows:
“[0063] At block 550, the money transfer host system may stage a money transfer transaction after receiving the money transfer initiation request. Staging a money transfer transaction may involve receiving all the necessary transfer information (e.g., receiver's name, address, account information, sender's name, address, account information, etc.) setting up the transaction so that the transfer can be executed or completed upon the sender providing an authorization to fund the money transfer and/or providing funds for the money transfer. In essence, the money transfer transaction is pending only an authorization by the sender to fund the money transfer. Staging a money transfer transaction may further include ensuring that the money transfer complies with at least one or all money transfer regulations (i.e., pre-clearing the money transfer), such as the OFAC regulations described previously. If die money transfer is pre-cleared before an authorization is received from die sender, the money transfer may be executed immediately upon receiving the authorization. Since the money transfer transaction is staged prior to the sender receiving the notification, the recipient hears nearly the entire burden for initiating the money transfer transaction and for ensuring that the money transfer information is correct and that the money transfer complies with all applicable rules and regulations.
[0064] At block 560, a transaction, identifier may be generated by the money transfer host system, such as a money transfer-control number (MTCN). The transaction identifier can be associated with the staged money transfer transaction so that all information associated with the stage money transfer transaction can be recalled by providing the transaction identifier. The transaction identifier may be provided to the sender, receiver, or both. Additionally or alternatively, the receiver may receiver the transaction identifier from the money transfer host system and provide the transaction identifier to the sender.” (Emphasis Added)
It is clear that either the payee or payor(s) may initiate the transaction and the Claims do not require or specify any particular arrangement in this regard.
Therefore, Bulawa is directly on point with the claimed invention:
With regard to Claim 1, Bulawa teaches:
1. A method for providing a staged money transfer transaction service, the method comprising: receiving, by a first device, staging information for a money transfer transaction, wherein the staging information comprises: information that identifies at least two senders, information that identifies a receiving party, and a transaction amount; (See at least [0062] – [0064] reproduced in part above.)
determining, by the first device, an amount of funds received from the at least two senders to fund the money transfer transaction, wherein each of the at least two senders provides at least a portion of the funds; (See at least [0064].)
verifying, by the first device, whether the amount of the funds received from the at least two senders is greater than or equal to the transaction amount; and (See at least [0014] – [0015].)
in response to a verification that the amount of funds received from the at least two senders is greater than or equal to the transaction amount, initiating the money transfer transaction to provide at least a portion of the transaction amount to the receiving party. (See at least Fig. 2 and accompanying description, as set forth in part above.)
Therefore, Bulawa appears to teach the basic limitations of Claim 1. However, out of an abundance of caution, and subject to further consideration of the cited reference and subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the relevant limitation, Christophersen is cited for its teachings relating to sender and receiver profiles.
Christophersen is Applicant’s own publication and should be well-known to Applicant.
Christophersen is in the exact same field of endeavor as Bulawa and the claimed invention – staging multi-party transactions.
The title is: System and method for staging money transfers between users having profiles
Thus, Christophersen teaches as follows in the Abstract:
“Various embodiments concern facilitating a money transfer by creating a first profile for a first user and a second profile for a second user. The first user can select the second profile from a plurality of profiles. The first user can enter a value designation for the transfer of money from the first user to the second user. A computing system can then stage the transfer of money based on previously saved profile information for the first user and the second user. The profile information can be used to set a plurality of terms of the money transfer without requiring either of the first user or the second user to reenter this information or otherwise affirmatively set the plurality of terms of the money transfer.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the multi-payor staged payment system of Bulawa to add the sender/receiver profile teachings of Christophersen. The motivation to do so comes from Bulawa. As quoted above, Bulawa teaches at [0075] – [0076] that user profiles may be established. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system of Bulawa to use the detailed profile teachings of Christophersen.
With regard to Claims 2 - 10, Bulawa in view of Christophersen teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein verifying whether the funds are greater than or equal to the transaction amount have been received from the at least two senders comprises: determining an amount of funds received from each of the at least two senders; aggregating the amount of funds received from each of the at least two senders to determine an aggregate amount of funds received from the at least two senders; and determining whether the aggregate amount of funds is greater than or equal to the transaction amount. (See at least Bulawa: [0014] – [0015].)
3. The method of claim 2, wherein each of the at least two senders provides the same amount of funds. (See at least [0015] wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the amounts may be the same or different as long as the “total” is received. See, e.g. “applying the funds towards in the total amount of funds.”)
4. The method of claim 2, wherein different senders of the at least two senders provide a different amount of funds. (See at least [0014] wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the amounts may be the same or different.)
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the at least two senders are associated with a profile that identifies one or more sources for providing funds for each of the at least two senders. (See at least Bulawa: [0075] – [0076] and the well-known teachings of Christophersen.)
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving party provides a first portion of the staging information, and wherein the at least two senders provide a second portion of the staging information. (See at least [0014] – [0015].)
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the first portion of the staging information comprises information for providing at least the portion of the transaction amount to the receiving party, and wherein the second portion of the staging information comprises information identifying each of the at least two senders and one or more sources for providing funds for each of the at least two senders. (See at least [0001] – [0005].)
8. The method of claim 7, wherein a particular sender of the at least two senders is designated as an administrator, and wherein the second portion of the staging information is received from the administrator. (See at least [0004] wherein the receiver is considered to constitute the recited term “administrator.”)
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a notification that includes an identifier corresponding to the money transfer transaction; transmitting the notification to each of the at least two senders; receiving information associated with the identifier in connection with receiving an amount of funds from a particular sender of the at least two senders; identifying the money transfer transaction based on the information associated with the identifier; associating the particular amount of funds received from the particular sender with the money transfer transaction; and updating a transaction log to indicate the particular amount of funds received from the particular sender. (See at least [0007] wherein the notification is considered to constitute the recited term “log.”)
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the money transfer transaction is a recurring money transfer transaction, the method further comprising: receiving scheduling information associated with the recurring money transfer transaction, the scheduling information identifying a frequency for the recurring money transfer transaction, a due date for the recurring money transfer transaction, and a lead time for sending a notification to each of the at least two senders; storing the scheduling information at a database; and periodically analyzing the scheduling information to determine, based on the lead time and the due date for the recurring money transfer transaction identified in the scheduling information, whether to generate and transmit the notification to each of the at least two senders. (See at least Fig. 2 reproduced above and [0055] – [0065].)
With regard to Claim 11, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 12, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 9 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 13, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 6 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 14, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 7 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 15, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 8 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 16, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 3 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 17, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 4 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 18, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 19, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 10 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 20, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 8 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim. (See at least [0055] as to a scheduling lead time.)
Conclusion
5. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. staged money transfer transactions). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0156521 to Cozens et al. This reference relates to the concept of multi-payors.
U.S. Patent No. 10,354,245 to Owen et al. This reference relates to the concept of multiple payors.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0352019 to Li et al. This reference relates to the concept of a group of payors.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0251922 to Cavagnaro. This reference relates to the concept of multiple payors.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0374073 to Zhao. This reference relates to the concept of multiple payors.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS).
To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
william.bunker@uspto.gov
(571) 272-0017
October 18, 2025
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691