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
Applicant filed an amendment on February 05, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-15, and 17-20 are amended. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 7 and 16 have been canceled. Claim 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 10, and 19. Thus claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the claims do not recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One), and further that the claims recite both a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two) and “significantly more” than any allegedly recited judicial exception (Step 2B); Applicant believes agreement would be most efficiently reached by focusing on the Step 2A, prong two analysis, Applicant will not address the Step 2A, prong one portion of the analysis at this time; the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, the claims are eligible at Step 2A, prong two; the amended claims include various additional elements that impose meaningful limitations on any allegedly abstract concept and apply it in a particular technological manner to improve the security of electronic disbursement systems; they include additional elements that specify how recipient verification and authentication are performed and how those operations control disbursement behavior; these additional elements are not generic computer functions or post-solution activity, and instead define a particular technological workflow that improves electronic disbursement security by preventing disbursement unless recipient identity is verified using (i) an mDL issued by a legally entitled authority and (ii) a secondary authentication protocol dynamically selected based on the identity of the verified recipient; the amended claims address the technological problem in electronic disbursement systems by introducing an automated solution for authenticating a target recipient for a disbursement; the claims require performance of two authentication protocols to verify the identity of the target recipient; this approach improves system security while maintaining operational efficiency, ensuring that more rigorous authentication is applied only when warranted; the claims set forth a specific practical application of any allegedly recited abstract idea, and in doing so improve the functioning of electronic disbursement systems and enhance security during fund transfers; the claimed additional elements therefore integrate any allegedly judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two; the combinations of features recited in the claims amount to “significantly more” than any allegedly recited judicial exception; Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims are eligible at Step 2B for a variety of reasons, including that they recite combinations that go well beyond any well-understood, routine, or conventional activity; and all pending claims recite eligible subject matter.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20260010904 A1, para 3), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘904 A1, para 3), discloses that the invention relates to verification of recipients during a disbursement process and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, by communications hardware, a disbursement initiation request from a recipient device of a target recipient, wherein the disbursement initiation request comprises (i) disbursement data and (ii) a recipient mDL; identifying, by mDL management circuitry, an issuing authority (IA) system associated with the recipient mDL; generating, by the mDL management circuitry, a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system; providing, by the communications hardware, the digital token to the IA system; verifying, by the mDL management circuitry, an authenticity of the mDL based on a response from the IA system; in response to successfully verifying the authenticity of the mDL: generating, by authentication circuitry and using a risk determination machine learning model, a risk score for the disbursement initiation request, wherein the risk score is determined based on a relationship between the target recipient and a disbursing entity, selecting, by the authentication circuitry and using the risk determination machine learning model, a secondary authentication protocol based on the risk score, and authenticating, by the authentication circuitry and based on the secondary authentication protocol, an identity of the target recipient; in response to successfully authenticating the identity of the target recipient, identifying, by disbursement circuitry and based on the identity of the target recipient, a disbursement method for the target recipient; and disbursing, by the disbursement circuitry, a disbursement amount to an account of the target recipient in accordance with the disbursement method”, which represent the abstract idea of “verification protocol for a disbursing event”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “communications hardware”, “a recipient device of a target recipient”, “mDL management circuitry”, “generating, by the mDL management circuitry, a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”, “providing, by the communications hardware, the digital token to the IA system”, “authentication circuitry and using a risk determination machine learning model”, and “disbursement circuitry”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea, a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a verification protocol for a disbursing event concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 10 also recites the abstract idea of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, as well as the additional elements of “an apparatus for enhancing electronic disbursement staging using a mobile driver's license (mDL), the apparatus comprising: …”, “communications hardware configured to”, “a recipient device of a target recipient”, “mDL management circuitry configured to: …, and generate a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”; “wherein the communications hardware is further configured to provide the digital token to the IA system”; “wherein the mDL management circuitry is further configured to”, “authentication circuitry configured to”, “using the risk determination machine learning model”, and “disbursement circuitry configured to:…”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event” using computer technology (e.g., “communications hardware” and “an apparatus”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, as well as the additional elements of “a computer program product for enhancing electronic disbursement staging using a mobile driver's license (mDL), the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations of: …”, “a recipient device of a target recipient”, “generating a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”, “providing the digital token to the IA system”, and “using a risk determination machine learning model”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event” using computer technology (e.g., “computer program product” and “an apparatus”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 30, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 19 has been amended to recite “A computer program produce for enhancing electronic disbursement staging … comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations of: …”, which makes clear what is performing the functional limitations “receiving, identifying, generating, providing, verifying, generating, selecting, authenticating, identifying, and disbursing”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 30, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 31, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 20 has been amended to recite “The computer program product of claim 19, wherein the software instructions, when executed by the apparatus, further cause the apparatus to perform operations of: …”, which makes clear what is performing the functional limitations “receiving and authenticating”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 31, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 19 has been amended to recite “A computer program produce for enhancing electronic disbursement staging … comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations of: …”, which no longer represents the intended uses of the apparatus. Claim 20 has been amended to recite “The computer program product of claim 19, wherein the software instructions, when executed by the apparatus, further cause the apparatus to perform operations of: …”, which no longer represents the intended uses of the apparatus. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 19-20 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated November 05, 2025, of Miu, US 9876803 B2 and Caldwell, US 12205100 B2, and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least “generating, by the mDL management circuitry, a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”, “in response to successfully verifying the authenticity of the mDL:
generating, by authentication circuitry and using a risk determination machine learning model, a risk score for the disbursement initiation request, wherein the risk score is determined based on a relationship between the target recipient and a disbursing entity”, “in response to successfully authenticating the identity of the target recipient, identifying, by disbursement circuitry and based on the identity of the target recipient, a disbursement method for the target recipient; and”, and “disbursing, by the disbursement circuitry, a disbursement amount to an account of the target recipient in accordance with the disbursement method”. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-6 and 8-9 are directed to a “method”, claims 10-15 and 17-18 are directed to an “apparatus”, and claims 19-22 are directed to a “product”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites: “receiving, by communications hardware, a disbursement initiation request from a recipient device of a target recipient, wherein the disbursement initiation request comprises (i) disbursement data and (ii) a recipient mDL; identifying, by mDL management circuitry, an issuing authority (IA) system associated with the recipient mDL; generating, by the mDL management circuitry, a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system; providing, by the communications hardware, the digital token to the IA system; verifying, by the mDL management circuitry, an authenticity of the mDL based on a response from the IA system; in response to successfully verifying the authenticity of the mDL: generating, by authentication circuitry and using a risk determination machine learning model, a risk score for the disbursement initiation request, wherein the risk score is determined based on a relationship between the target recipient and a disbursing entity, selecting, by the authentication circuitry and using the risk determination machine learning model, a secondary authentication protocol based on the risk score, and authenticating, by the authentication circuitry and based on the secondary authentication protocol, an identity of the target recipient; in response to successfully authenticating the identity of the target recipient, identifying, by disbursement circuitry and based on the identity of the target recipient, a disbursement method for the target recipient; and disbursing, by the disbursement circuitry, a disbursement amount to an account of the target recipient in accordance with the disbursement method”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “communications hardware”, “a recipient device of a target recipient”, “mDL management circuitry”, “generating, by the mDL management circuitry, a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”, “providing, by the communications hardware, the digital token to the IA system”, “authentication circuitry and using a risk determination machine learning model”, and “disbursement circuitry”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event” using computer technology (e.g., “a recipient device of a target recipient” and “a risk determination machine learning model”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 10 also recites the abstract idea of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, as well as the additional elements of “an apparatus for enhancing electronic disbursement staging using a mobile driver's license (mDL), the apparatus comprising: …”, “communications hardware configured to”, “a recipient device of a target recipient”, “mDL management circuitry configured to: …, and generate a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”; “wherein the communications hardware is further configured to provide the digital token to the IA system”; “wherein the mDL management circuitry is further configured to”, “authentication circuitry configured to”, “using the risk determination machine learning model”, and “disbursement circuitry configured to:…”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event” using computer technology (e.g., “communications hardware” and “an apparatus”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, as well as the additional elements of “a computer program product for enhancing electronic disbursement staging using a mobile driver's license (mDL), the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations of: …”, “a recipient device of a target recipient”, “generating a digital token for the recipient mDL, wherein the digital token is encrypted using a public key of the IA system”, “providing the digital token to the IA system”, and “using a risk determination machine learning model”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event” using computer technology (e.g., “computer program product” and “an apparatus”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-22 further describe the abstract idea of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 19.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-22 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of a “verification protocol for a disbursing event”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Hence, claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Graham (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240202724 A1) – Apparatus And Methods For Identification Using Third-Party Verifiers
Graham discloses a method based on identity verification, the method comprising: receiving a request for a payout from a second entity and receiving verification of a verifier, where receiving verification of the verifier may include receiving identifying data associated with the verifier where the identifying data comprises at least an image, and where the at least an image is a pixel array. The method may further include classifying the at least an image to a stored pixel array associated with an authorized verifier and confirming the identity of the verifier as an authorized verifier as a function of classifying the at least an image. Moreover, the method may include initiating the payout between a first entity and the second entity as a function of the verification and the request and performing, by the processor, the payout between the first entity and the second entity as a function of the verification.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights