DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
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 1-11 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 and 7 are directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims, when the bolded limitations are removed, recite the following abstract concept.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for a transaction between a user and a third party;
generating a displayable and scannable transaction code, the transaction code embedding a transaction identification number unique to the transaction and a location of one of the user or the third party;
sending the transaction code to one of the user or the third party for the other of the user and the third party to scan to request a transfer of funds from an account of the user to the third party;
receiving a transfer request to transfer funds from the account of the user to the third party, the transfer request including the transaction code and information related to a transaction amount for transferring to the third party; and generating a verification request to confirm the information related to the transaction.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the transfer request including the information related to the transaction amount is received from the third party.
Claim 3 recites: receiving a verification response confirming the information related to the transaction amount included in the transfer request.
Claim 4 recites: transferring funds in the transaction amount to the third party upon receiving the verification response.
Claim 5 recites: determining a second location of the other of the user and the third party; and
determining that the second location is within a predetermined distance of the location, wherein transferring funds in the transaction amount to the third party is based on the determination that the second location is within the predetermined distance of the location.
Claim 6 recites denying the transfer request if a difference between a time provided in the transfer request and a timestamp embedded in the transaction code exceeds a predetermined time limit.
Claim 7 recites:
generating, by a client application running on a mobile device of a user, a selectable option to initiate a payment transaction; receiving, by the client application, a user request to initiate a payment transaction; generating, by the client application, a transaction request input screen; receiving, by the transaction request input screen of the client application, an input indicating a payee; generating, by the client application, a transaction code unique to the payment transaction, the transaction code based on the payee;
providing, by the client application, the transaction code to the user; and
facilitating, by the client application, a transfer of funds from a user account associated with the client application to the payee in response to receiving a disbursement request containing the transaction code from the payee.
Claim 8 recites: generating, by the client application, a machine readable code that embeds the transaction code.
Claim 9 recites: providing, by the client application and upon completion of the transfer of funds to the payee, a confirmation of the completed transfer to the user.
Claim 10 recites: providing, by the client application and prior to transferring funds to the payee, a current account balance of the user account associated with the client application to the user.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the input provided via the transaction request input screen comprises one of a phone number or an email address associated with the payee.
Applicant is to be noted that:
The steps of “receiving” involve a data gathering function.,
the steps or functions of “generating” involve generic computer functions and/or mental processes .
the steps of “sending” involve an insignificant post solution activity.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of:
generating a displayable and scannable transaction code, the transaction code embedding a transaction identification number unique to the transaction and a location of one of the user or the third party, receiving a transfer request to transfer funds from the account of the user to the third party, and generating a verification request to confirm the information related to the transaction.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “mobile device” of claim 7 is similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps or functions by a mobile or a computing system merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The receiving, generating, providing and transferring functions are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing system which receive, generate, determine and transfer data or funds.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps or functions are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of finally facilitating a transfer of fund from a user account to a payee in response to receiving a disbursement request containing a transaction code from the payee.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Claims 1-6 do not recite any additional elements.
Receiving, generating, providing and transferring data by electronic means or hardware amount to receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “mobile device” as noted in claim 7, does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of the additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because this element in combination is noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed mobile device is noted to a be a generic computer for collecting data and performing routine and conventional functions therein. This additional element does not overcome the analysis as this element is merely considered as the additional element which amounts to instructions to be applied to the generic computer or mobile device.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “mobile device” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claimed mobile device is also seen as generic computer component for receiving data, and performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed mobile device is interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because each claim does not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dai
(US Pub. No. 2011/0191244 A1).
As per claim 1, Dai discloses a system and method for securing a transaction of a client using a mobile device. See the abstract of Dai. Accordingly, Dai teaches or discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for a transaction between a user and a third party (see paragraph [0050] );
generating a displayable and scannable transaction code, the transaction code embedding a transaction identification number unique to the transaction and a location of one of the user or the third party (see paragraphs [0035], [0050] and [0069] of Dai) ;
sending the transaction code to one of the user or the third party for the other of the user and the third party to scan to request a transfer of funds from an account of the user to the third party (see paragraphs [0050] and [0070] - [0071] of Dai);
receiving a transfer request to transfer funds from the account of the user to the third party (see paragraph [0050] of Dai),
the transfer request including the transaction code (see paragraph [0070] of Dai.) and
information related to a transaction amount for transferring to the third party (see paragraphs [0050] and [0070] - [0071] of Dai); and
generating a verification request to confirm the information related to the transaction (See paragraphs [0050] and [0061]and [0070] – [0071] of Dai).
As per claim 2, Dai teaches or discloses wherein the transfer request including the information related to the transaction amount is received from the third party. See paragraph [0050] of Dai.
As per claim 3, Dai teaches or discloses receiving a verification response confirming the information related to the transaction amount included in the transfer request. See paragraph [0050] of Dai.
As per claim 4, Dai teaches or discloses transferring funds in the transaction amount to the third party upon receiving the verification response. See paragraph [0050] of Dai.
As per claim 5, as per the claimed “determining that the second location is within a predetermined distance of the location, wherein transferring funds in the transaction amount to the third party is based on the determination that the second location is within the predetermined distance of the location”,
Dai teaches determining the location of the payee and comparing the location of the payee with a location of a terminal (which is similar to the claimed second location) for assuring a transaction is at a given location for fraud precaution purposes. See claim 10 of Dai and paragraphs [0036] and [0040] of Dai.
As per claim 7, Dai discloses a system and method for securing a transaction of a client using a mobile device. See the abstract of Dai. Accordingly, Dai teaches or discloses:
generating, by a client application running on a mobile device of a user, a selectable option to initiate a payment transaction; receiving, by the client application, a user request to initiate a payment transaction (see paragraph [0050] of Dai);
generating, by the client application, a transaction request input screen (see also paragraph [0050] of Dai);
receiving, by the transaction request input screen of the client application, an input indicating a payee (see paragraphs [0035], [0050] and [0069] of Dai) ;
generating, by the client application, a transaction code unique to the payment transaction, the transaction code based on the payee (see paragraph [0061] of Dai).;
providing, by the client application, the transaction code to the user; (see paragraphs [0061] of Dai) and
facilitating, by the client application, a transfer of funds from a user account associated with the client application to the payee in response to receiving a disbursement request containing the transaction code from the payee (see paragraphs [0050] and [0061]and [0070] – [0071] of Dai).
As per claim 8, Dai teaches or discloses a machine readable code that embeds the transaction code. See paragraphs [0061] and [0065] of Dai.
As per claim 9, Dai teaches or discloses providing, by the client application and upon completion of the transfer of funds to the payee, a confirmation of the completed transfer to the user. See paragraph [0049] of Dai.
As per claim 10, Dai teaches or discloses providing, by the client application and prior to transferring funds to the payee, a current account balance of the user account associated with the client application to the user. Applicant is directed to paragraph [0037] of Dai.
As per claim 11, Dai teaches or discloses wherein the input provided via the transaction request input screen comprises one of a phone number or an email address associated with the payee. See paragraph [0042] and [0072] of Dai.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dai
(US Pub. No. 2011/0191244 A1).
As per claim 6, the teachings of Dai are discussed above. Dai does not explicitly state:
“denying the transfer request if a difference between a time provided in the transfer request and a timestamp embedded in the transaction code”.
“Dai teaches providing a timestamp of a transaction. See paragraph [0040] of Dai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deny a transfer if the “difference between a time provided in the transfer request and a timestamp embedded in the transaction code exceeds a predetermined time limit” because Dai teaches that the time of a transaction may vary (see paragraph [0035] of Dai.) for fraud deterrent purposes to assure that a transaction time is within an acceptable time of a payment request.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
February 19, 2026