DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated January 06, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 06, 2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 21-28, 31-34, and 37-40 have been amended. Claims 1-20 were previously cancelled. Claims 29-30 and 35-36 are now cancelled. Claims 41-44 have been newly added. Thus, claims 21-28, 31-34, and 37-44 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below
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 21-28, 31-34, and 37-44 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 sum, claims 21-28, 31-34, and 37-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 34 and 37–40), a machine (claims 21–27 and 41-44), a manufacture (claims 28 and 31–33), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of sending and receiving requests tied to two users in order to initiate and compete a transaction and verifying the completion of the transaction via a message from one consumer to another using a token by:
maintaining, via a,…,including a security engine, security information for a,…;
receiving, within an application,…, and in association with a first user account, a request to access a service in conjunction with a second user account;
obtaining, via the application,…,a second user account identifier corresponding to the second user account;
transmitting,…,associated with the service, a request to verify that the second user account is registered with the service, the request comprising the second user account identifier and device metadata associated with the,…;
receiving, from the service provider server, a response that indicates whether the second user account is registered with the service, wherein the response includes a formal request token for performing the service in conjunction with the second user account when the second user account is registered with the service and when a number of prior service requests associated with the first user account does not exceed a request threshold;
when the response received from,…, indicates that the second user account is registered with the service and the response includes the formal request token for performing the service in conjunction with the second user account:
displaying, within the application,…, a user interface for receiving user input for performing the service in conjunction with the second user account;
receiving, via the user interface, the user input for performing the service;
generating a request to perform the service using the formal request token received from the service provider,…, for performing the service in conjunction with the second user account;
generating a signature of the request using the security information maintained by the security engine of the,…;
transmitting, to ,…,and via a,…, separate from a,…, used to communicate messages via the application, the signed request to perform the service in conjunction with the second user account, the signed request comprising the user input, the signature, and the formal request token, wherein the formal request token is included in the request for validation by the service provider,…, prior to processing of the signed request to perform the service;
receiving,…,when the,…, an indication that the service has been performed by the service provider,…, with respect to the first user account and the second user account;
transmitting,…,associated with the second user account,…, another indication that the service was performed by,…,with respect to the first user account and the second user account; and
displaying, via the application,…,the indication that indicates that the service was performed by,…,with respect to the first user account and the second user account; and
when the response received from,…,indicates that the second user account is not registered with the service, displaying, within the application,…,an indication that the second user account is not registered with the service while foregoing display, within the application,…, of the user interface for receiving the user input for performing the service.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic principles or practices as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sending and receiving requests tied to two users in order to initiate and compete a transaction and verifying the completion of the transaction via a message from one consumer to another using a token). Independent claims 21 and 28 are nearly identical to claim 34 so the same analysis applies to them as well. Claim 21 contains additional elements not found in the other claims such as a “memory” and “processor” that are being used to implement the abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “server”, “device,” and “channel,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0020] and [0040] of the specification).
Dependent claims 22–27, 31–33, and 37–44 have been considered and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
McElmurry et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0171481) does not teach “receiving, from the service provider server, a response that indicates whether the second user account is registered with the service, wherein the response includes a security token for performing the service in conjunction with the second user account when the second user account is registered with the service…”
McElmurry teaches a method for transacting between two users via input using a messaging platform. However, McElmurry does not that the sender user is able to determine whether the recipient user is registered prior to the payment being sent. This is performed by the current invention.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 06, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “The amended independent claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims now recite a specific technical arrangement in which a device resident application sends a verification request.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, pp. 13-14). However, under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Although Applicant claims there are multiple “interactive elements” now included with the amended claims, there are no interactive elements here which would result in the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application as they are not being performed by a user. Instead, these “interactive elements” are being performed between the various generic components in the backend of the system. This is merely data being input and then displayed in a generic manner. Using generic components such as a “formal request token” and then generating a request using this token does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant also argues that “[e]ven if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, the Office Action does not establish a prima facie case under Step 2B. The Office Action treats the recited devices, servers, channels, and token as if they are merely generic tools, but that analysis does not address the amended claims as a whole. The amended claims now recite a device side architecture….” (See Applicant’s Arguments, pp. 15-16). Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “server”, “device,” and “channel,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0020] and [0040] of the specification). Using generic methods such as using a formal request token that may limit the number of transaction requests is not a technological improvement. Merely using a request token in conjunction with verifying that a user is registered to then carry out a transaction based on a given result is not a technological improvement. Applicant also states that “The Office Action does not identify evidence showing that this claimed combination of features is well understood, routine, and conventional.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 16). However, this is bizarre as the Office has never made the claim that the claimed combination is “well understood, routine, and conventional.” Instead, the Office has stated that these claims features do not feature any kind of technological improvement to computer technology, even when in concert with one another.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM 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, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights