DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/800,872 entitled "INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PLATFORMS AND METHODS OF USE" filed on January 20, 2026, with claims 43-62 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 48 and 53 are cancelled.
Claims 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 20, 2026, has been entered. Claims 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 23, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 14, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 43 recites:
“…providing a plurality of rails that are based or built …wherein the plurality of rails are configured to enable a plurality of financial transactions comprising direct deposits, money transfers, debits, financed purchases, or point of sale loans between a plurality of parties; and
…for managing an application for implementing the plurality of rails, wherein the application ….for facilitating the financial transactions between the plurality of parties, wherein at least one of the financial transactions is completed by using a visual code that is indicative or representative of a transaction amount or settlement between a first party and a second party,
wherein the application is configured to generate the visual code for the first party, wherein the visual code is subsequently displayed or … by the first party to the second party, and wherein the visual code is specific only to the second party, such that the at least one financial transaction is unable to be completed if the visual code is scanned or processed by another party that is not the second party.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumers/buyers and/or financial services provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “enable a plurality of financial transactions comprising direct deposits, money transfers, debits, financed purchases, or point of sale loans between a plurality of parties” and “facilitating the financial transactions between the plurality of parties” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A computer program product for providing an integrated financial services platform, the computer program product being encoded on one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media and comprising:
instruction for providing ][ instruction ][is executable on a plurality of devices and comprises a graphical user interface]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmitted]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
[on a blockchain]:
generally linking to blockchain storage as a means to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0061] The plurality of devices may include personal computers (e.g., portable PC), slate or tablet PC's (e.g., Apple® iPad, Samsung® Galaxy Tab), telephones, Smart phones (e.g., Apple® iPhone, Android-enabled device, Blackberry®), or personal digital assistants.
[0096] Examples of remote computer systems include personal computers (e.g., portable PC), slate or tablet PC's (e.g., Apple® iPad, Samsung® Galaxy Tab), telephones, Smart phones (e.g., Apple® iPhone, Android-enabled device, Blackberry®), or personal digital assistants. The user can access the computer system 901 via the network 930.
[0099] As used herein, unless restricted to non-transitory, tangible “storage” media, terms such as computer or machine “readable medium” refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to a processor for execution.
[0100] Carrier-wave transmission media may take the form of electric or electromagnetic signals, or acoustic or light waves such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 43 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 44-47:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 49:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmit”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
Claim 50:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“device”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 51, 52, and 54:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 55:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“blockchain”: generally linking to blockchain storage as a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 56:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 57:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“machine learning”: generally linking to machine learning as a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 58:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 59:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“blockchain”: generally linking to blockchain storage as a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 60:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 61:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“blockchain”: generally linking to blockchain storage as a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 62:
“computer program product”: merely applying computer technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0061] The plurality of devices may include personal computers (e.g., portable PC), slate or tablet PC's (e.g., Apple® iPad, Samsung® Galaxy Tab), telephones, Smart phones (e.g., Apple® iPhone, Android-enabled device, Blackberry®), or personal digital assistants.
[0096] Examples of remote computer systems include personal computers (e.g., portable PC), slate or tablet PC's (e.g., Apple® iPad, Samsung® Galaxy Tab), telephones, Smart phones (e.g., Apple® iPhone, Android-enabled device, Blackberry®), or personal digital assistants. The user can access the computer system 901 via the network 930.
[0099] As used herein, unless restricted to non-transitory, tangible “storage” media, terms such as computer or machine “readable medium” refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to a processor for execution.
[0100] Carrier-wave transmission media may take the form of electric or electromagnetic signals, or acoustic or light waves such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 43-47, 49-52, 54, and 59-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez-Sheris ("SYSTEM AND METHOD USING A FITNESS-GRADIENT BLOCKCHAIN CONSENSUS AND PROVIDING ADVANCED DISTRIBUTED LEDGER CAPABILITIES VIA SPECIALIZED DATA RECORDS ", U.S. Publication Number: 20200396065 A1),in view of Babcock (“QR CODE INITIATIVE: FRAUD DETECTION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220147970 A1).
Regarding Claim 43,
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
A computer program product for providing an integrated financial services platform, the computer program product being encoded on one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media and comprising:
instruction for providing a plurality of rails that are based or built on a blockchain,
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0200] the present invention...software implementation
Gutierrez-Sheris [0622] the present invention by which token trading may be implemented within peer-to-peer networked blockchain software
Gutierrez-Sheris [0325] copying such a data package from a USB thumb drive or other physical medium
Gutierrez-Sheris [0012] instructions stored in an electronic memory
Gutierrez-Sheris [0001] invention generally relates to a field of blockchain technology, which is also known as a distributed electronic ledger
Gutierrez-Sheris [0002] Distributed electronic ledgers are utilized for....exchange and recording of transactions in crypto currencies, such as, for example, transactions involving Bitcoin, Etherium, Ripple (XPR) and other crypto currencies.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0800] present system and method may be utilized for currency-backed asset tokens, foreign exchange trading and financial remittances.)
wherein the plurality of rails are configured to enable a plurality of financial transactions
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0800] utilized for currency-backed asset tokens, foreign exchange trading and financial remittances.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0440] retail payments
Gutierrez-Sheris [0698] multiple insured individuals, and may therefore draw from a single shared value pool when making payments.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0798] An “auction” smart contract may hold an asset pending the completion of the auction, and mediate the handling of bids and payment funds
Gutierrez-Sheris [0843] as re-payment for a loan, or in exchange for a cash withdrawal.)
comprising direct deposits, money transfers, debits, financed purchases, or point of sale loans between a plurality of parties;
(Gutierrez-Sheris [Abstract] transfer, transaction, trade order, settlement
Gutierrez-Sheris [0797] when loan funds are transferred ... loan funds to the seller and the asset-backed tokens to the buyer.)
and instruction for managing an application for implementing the plurality of rails, wherein the application is executable on a plurality of devices and comprises a graphical user interface for facilitating the financial transactions between the plurality of parties,
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0040] A vendor device runs software
Gutierrez-Sheris [0459] The Recipient device will convey this information to the Recipient via its user interface.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0036] blockchain processing device may also optionally include a display
Gutierrez-Sheris [0797] loan funds to the seller and the asset-backed tokens to the buyer.)
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein at least one of the financial transactions is completed by using a visual code that is indicative or representative of a transaction amount or settlement between a first party and a second party.
Babcock teaches,
wherein at least one of the financial transactions is completed by using a visual code that is indicative or representative of a transaction amount or settlement between a first party and a second party,
(Babcock [0067] context-based information encoded with and/or correlated to the electronically generated QR code can include price/value information associated with the transaction. That is, the overall price, cost, and/or value of the transaction can be specified, identified, encrypted, and/or encoded into (and/or can be otherwise correlated/mapped to) the electronically generated QR code )
wherein the application is configured to generate the visual code for the first party, wherein the visual code is subsequently displayed or transmitted by the first party to the second party, and wherein the visual code is specific only to the second party, such that the at least one financial transaction is unable to be completed if the visual code is scanned or processed by another party that is not the second party.
(Babcock [0054] electronically generated QR codes can be used to securely and/or privately transfer information from one entity to another. ... generate a QR code by encrypting, encoding, and/or embedding desired information into the QR code...can electronically display the electronically generated QR code to a scanner/reader device of the second entity
Babcock [0080] including/encoding such geo-fencing restrictions in (and/or correlating/mapping such geo-fencing restrictions to) the electronically generated QR code can help to enhance the safety, security, and/or privacy of the transaction...geo-fencing restrictions defining the locations at which the payment information is deemed valid and/or defining the locations at which the payment information is deemed invalid. Suppose that the transaction between the first entity and the second entity occurs at a geo-location M.
Babcock [0082] including/encoding such temporal and/or time-fencing restrictions in (and/or correlating/mapping such temporal and/or time-fencing restrictions to) the electronically generated QR code can help to enhance the safety
Babcock [0088] including/encoding such merchant identity restrictions in (and/or correlating/mapping such merchant identity restrictions to) the electronically generated QR code can help to enhance the safety
Babcock [0089] an electronically generated QR code restriction-based information defining situations and/or conditions in which payment information is deemed valid and/or invalid (e.g., geo-fencing restrictions, temporal and/or time-fencing restrictions, product/service restrictions, value/price restrictions, and/or merchant identity restrictions).
Babcock [0091] biometric safeguards can be leveraged to help ensure that the smart device electronically generates and/or displays QR codes only for authorized users.
Babcock [0084] do not satisfy the product/service restrictions .... the payment processing system can determine that the transaction is invalid... can otherwise instruct the point-of-sale device to refuse to accept the payment information stored within and/or correlated to the electronically generated QR code and/or to refuse to provide the product/service 0 to the first entity.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the QR code payment teachings of Babcock for “transaction-based QR codes.” (Babcock [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “QR codes for improved fraud detection” Babcock [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 44,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the application is a mobile application (app) or web-based.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0871] It would be the responsibility of the remitter or the remitter's software (for instance, a wallet mobile app)
Gutierrez-Sheris [0042] blockchain peer-to-peer software,... via a connected distributed data interchange network like the Internet.)
Regarding Claim 45,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the visual code comprises a two-dimensional code.
Babcock teaches,
wherein the visual code comprises a two-dimensional code.
(Babcock [0053] a QR code, once generated and displayed, can visually appear to be a two-dimensional matrix and/or rectilinear grid of black and/or white squares.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the QR code payment teachings of Babcock for “transaction-based QR codes.” (Babcock [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “QR codes for improved fraud detection” Babcock [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 46,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 45 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the two-dimensional code comprises a quick response (QR) code.
Babcock teaches,
wherein the two-dimensional code comprises a quick response (QR) code.
(Babcock [0053] a QR code, once generated and displayed, can visually appear to be a two-dimensional matrix and/or rectilinear grid of black and/or white squares.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the QR code payment teachings of Babcock for “transaction-based QR codes.” (Babcock [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “QR codes for improved fraud detection” Babcock [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 47,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
with an invoice from the first party to the second party.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0445] The payment request is encoded as a message that contains the token amount requested and destination account or address to which the message will be sent, ...for which payment is being requested (as in an invoice), details regarding the identity of the requestor)
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the visual code is associated
Babcock teaches,
wherein the visual code is associated
(Babcock [0053] a QR code, once generated and displayed, can visually appear to be a two-dimensional matrix and/or rectilinear grid of black and/or white squares)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the QR code payment teachings of Babcock for “transaction-based QR codes.” (Babcock [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “QR codes for improved fraud detection” Babcock [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 49,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the application is configured to enable the first party to transmit the visual code via text message or email to the second party.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0447] This second party, the “Sender”, may, in at least one embodiment, receive this message via mobile text message or SMS, or via an electronic mail message, which message will contain a visual encoding of the request (for instance, as a QR code or 2-dimensional barcode) in a graphical attachment)
Regarding Claim 50,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the at least one financial transaction is completed or settled substantially in real-time
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0440] A common challenge that blockchain users face when using tokens to make payments in real time, especially retail payments, is that it takes some time to finalize or confirm a payment or token transfer on the blockchain.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0443] The present invention aids in the process of finalizing or confirming payments or transfers in at least one embodiment by decreasing the delay between blocks and increasing the rate that new blocks are added to the blockchain)
upon the second party scanning or processing the visual code using a device.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0447] This second party, the “Sender”, may, in at least one embodiment, receive this message via mobile text message or SMS, or via an electronic mail message, which message will contain a visual encoding of the request (for instance, as a QR code or 2-dimensional barcode) in a graphical attachment)
Regarding Claim 51,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the visual code comprises metadata about the first party, nature of the at least one financial transaction, and a timestamp.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0445] payment request is encoded as a message that contains the token amount requested and destination account or address to which the message will be sent, as well as other information including, in at least one embodiment, itemized details as to the services or products for which payment is being requested (as in an invoice), details regarding the identity of the requestor (for instance, name, street address, telephone number, photograph), and the type of token being requested in the case that more than one token is hosted within the blockchain system.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0447] message is then transmitted electronically via various possible means to the second party ... message will contain a visual encoding of the request (for instance, as a QR code or 2-dimensional barcode)
Gutierrez-Sheris [0648] Each trade order record includes the following fields, in addition to other relevant fields that have already been specified above for trade orders:
Gutierrez-Sheris [0649] (a) Expiration: timestamp or block number after which the trade order will fall off of the order book.)
Regarding Claim 52,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 51 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the visual code further comprises metadata about the second party.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0445] payment request is encoded as a message that contains the token amount requested and destination account or address to which the message will be sent
Gutierrez-Sheris [0447] message is then transmitted electronically via various possible means to the second party ... message will contain a visual encoding of the request (for instance, as a QR code or 2-dimensional barcode))
Regarding Claim 54,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the platform is configured to integrate transactional data from the plurality of financial transactions into a contextual rewards program offered by one or more of the plurality of parties.
Babcock teaches,
wherein the platform is configured to integrate transactional data from the plurality of financial transactions into a contextual rewards program offered by one or more of the plurality of parties.
(Babcock [0101] can offer rewards (e.g., discounts, coupons, specials).... (e.g., by encoding such ....information into an electronically generated QR code) depending upon the extent of the reward offered.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the QR code payment teachings of Babcock for “transaction-based QR codes.” (Babcock [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “QR codes for improved fraud detection” Babcock [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 59,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the platform is configured to host a plurality of accounts with funds or balances, and wherein the blockchain is configured to maintain all of the plurality of accounts, the funds or balances, and the plurality of financial transactions, by extending across the plurality of rails and supporting a fiat bridge interface to at least some of the rails.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0371] determine which account balances would be subject
Gutierrez-Sheris [0661] Token balances within the account records of the blockchain system's global state are updated to reflect settled trades.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0763] link possession of a token or smart contract representing an asset to real-world ownership rights; how to properly mediate the transfer of ownership of an asset within a complex transaction that may involve multiple steps, including “fiat” currency payments;)
Regarding Claim 60,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the platform is configured to incorporate and custody cryptocurrency wallets.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0405] These features and methods also resolve certain regulatory hurdles caused by uncertainty regarding the custody of cryptographic keys.... a means by which such entities may substantiate an assertion that it maintains complete control over the tokens in its custody.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0038] The wallet device 120 functions as a “Wallet” that acts to securely store cryptographic keys, which keys are used to cryptographically sign new data records that are proposed for inclusion in the blockchain.)
Regarding Claim 61,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the plurality of parties are accountholders on the platform, and wherein each account associated with the corresponding accountholders represents a wallet on the blockchain.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0422] A wallet device generates a new account on the blockchain
Gutierrez-Sheris [0756] The first account holder's wallet constructs a message that contains the account information and all identity information
Gutierrez-Sheris [0049] Tokens belong to particular accounts or addresses)
Regarding Claim 62,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches,
wherein the platform is configured to allow the plurality of parties to earn transaction income from the plurality of financial transactions occurring across the plurality of rails.
(Gutierrez-Sheris [0037] each Block-Building Node is associated with an account or address on the blockchain, to which account or address block mining rewards may be assigned.
Gutierrez-Sheris [0106] originating account that signs the bucket assignment record ... in exchange for a chance to earn a larger token reward in the future
Gutierrez-Sheris [0340] they recoup their costs by selling the native tokens generated in exchange for “fiat” currency.)
Claims 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock in view of Vora (“DIGITAL PAYMENTS LINKED TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220164787 A1).
Regarding Claim 55,
Gutierrez-Sheris, Babcock, and Vora teach the payment platform of Claim 54 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the platform is configured to use the blockchain as a system or a record for accumulation, redemption or transfer of points or rewards for the contextual rewards program.
Vora teaches,
wherein the platform is configured to use the blockchain as a system or a record for accumulation, redemption or transfer of points or rewards for the contextual rewards program.
(Vora [0036] to exchange crypto currencies such as BitCoin and the like, the payment network server may first record exchanges... crypto currency transactions may be initially logged within the payment network system using its own crypto coin, off of the public blockchain, prior to settling through an external exchange on the public blockchain.
Vora [0103] may involve making adjustments to user's wallets and/or conveying information to external financial system gateways, crypto currency exchanges, data storage locations, and the like
Vora [0044] Items may be exchanged ... For example, coupons, non-cash rewards, and the like, may be exchanged via the payment network server.
Vora [0168] geographically based loyalty programs)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the blockchain QR code payment teachings of Vora for the “QR code displayed is displayed on the phone of the person they intend to pay.” (Vora [0111]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. blockchain QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “If the payment network server accepts the displayed QR code as legitimate, the transaction can be completed” Vora [0111])
Regarding Claim 56,
Gutierrez-Sheris, Babcock, and Vora teach the payment platform of Claim 55 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the platform is configured to generate one or more geolocation alerts associated with the contextual rewards program, based on a geographical proximity between a first party that is offering the contextual rewards program and a second party that is a customer or potential customer of the first party.
Vora teaches,
wherein the platform is configured to generate one or more geolocation alerts associated with the contextual rewards program, based on a geographical proximity between a first party that is offering the contextual rewards program and a second party that is a customer or potential customer of the first party.
(Vora [Abstract] Electronic transfers of value may be secured via verification of locations of parties....Locations may be fixed geolocations, proximities, and/or positions...Transfers may be made from party to party, party to place and place to party, and/or party to a virtual point-of-sale at a place. Transferred items may be electronic funds in fiat and/or crypto currencies, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)/data associated NFTs, electronic data, and/or securities/financial instruments, for example.
Vora [0180] the receiver is notified by the receiver's device that they have received the drop contents in their wallet.
Vora [0044] Items may be exchanged ... For example, coupons, non-cash rewards, and the like, may be exchanged via the payment network server.
Vora [0168] geographically based loyalty programs.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the blockchain QR code payment teachings of Vora for the “QR code displayed is displayed on the phone of the person they intend to pay.” (Vora [0111]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. blockchain QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “If the payment network server accepts the displayed QR code as legitimate, the transaction can be completed” Vora [0111])
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock in view of Cella (“MARKET ORCHESTRATION SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING ELECTRONIC MARKETPLACE TRANSACTIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220198562 A1).
Regarding Claim 57,
Gutierrez-Sheris and Babcock teach the payment platform of Claim 43 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach further comprising: instruction for applying one or more machine learning algorithms to transactional data from the plurality of financial transactions for an underwriting process.
Cella teaches,
further comprising: instruction for applying one or more machine learning algorithms to transactional data from the plurality of financial transactions for an underwriting process.
(Cella [0017] the artificial intelligence system includes ... analytic processing.
Cella [0312] risk factors of the borrower (including predicted risk based on one or more predictive models using artificial intelligence)
Cella [0082] a lending platform having an underwriting system for a loan with a set of data-integrated microservices including data collection and monitoring services, blockchain services, artificial intelligence services, and smart contract services for underwriting lending entities and transactions.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the underwriting teachings of Cella for “a lending platform having an underwriting system.” (Cella [0082]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “data-integrated microservices including data collection and monitoring services, blockchain services, artificial intelligence services, and smart contract services for underwriting lending entities and transactions” Cella [0082])
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez-Sheris, Babcock, Vora and Cella.
Regarding Claim 58,
Gutierrez-Sheris, Vora, and Cella teach the payment platform of Claim 57 as described earlier.
Gutierrez-Sheris does not teach wherein the application is configured to generate one or more visual codes that are indicative of credit offers for extending to one or more parties; based on results of the underwriting process.
Vora teaches,
wherein the application is configured to generate one or more visual codes that are indicative of credit offers for extending to one or more parties
(Vora [0111] scanning a QR code...the QR code displayed is displayed on the phone of the person they intend to pay.
Vora [0048] Further, transactions may be conditioned on behaviors of the parties.
Vora [0049] a vendor may have a policy of not extending credit to parties exhibiting risky behavior.
Vora [0050] Similarly, transactions may be conditioned on user behavior, e.g., such as agreeing to a reciprocal exchange.
Examiner notes the prior art implies a vendor may extend credit to parties not exhibiting risky behavior. )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the blockchain QR code payment teachings of Vora for the “QR code displayed is displayed on the phone of the person they intend to pay.” (Vora [0111]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. blockchain QR code payment) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “If the payment network server accepts the displayed QR code as legitimate, the transaction can be completed” Vora [0111])
Vora does not teach based on results of the underwriting process.
Cella teaches,
based on results of the underwriting process.
(Cella [0082] a lending platform having an underwriting system for a loan with a set of data-integrated microservices including data collection and monitoring services, blockchain services, artificial intelligence services, and smart contract services for underwriting lending entities and transactions.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the underwriting teachings of Cella for “a lending platform having an underwriting system.” (Cella [0082]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. payment platform) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “data-integrated microservices including data collection and monitoring services, blockchain services, artificial intelligence services, and smart contract services for underwriting lending entities and transactions” Cella [0082])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on January 20, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“A. Claims 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 Are Directed To Statutory Subject Matter Under 35
U.S.C. & 101…. Applicant has claimed a system defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software or files, namely "platform." Id. at p. 3. "Thus the entire claim presents itself as software per se, which is not a statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101." Id. at p. 4. Applicant has herein amended claim 43 to recite "[a] computer program product…. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claim 43 includes non-transitory hardware in accordance with Examiner's recommendation. "
Examiner responds:
The addition of “non-transitory hardware” is noted and the “software per se” rejection is lifted.
The Applicant states:
“B. Claims 43-47, 49-52, and 54-62 Are patent eligible Under 35 U.S.C. 101… Examiner rejected claims 43-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being "directed to an abstract idea without significantly more." … sets forth a solution for the objectively technical problem of efficiently and securely implementing financial transactions over a communication network--a problem that cannot be solved by mental steps, with pencil and paper, or by purely organizing human activity (such as personal behavior or relationships or interactions). The present application describes the technical problem of high cost and significant time consumed for implementing safeguards for transactions. "
Examiner responds:
Examiner asserts that “implementing financial transactions” expresses and abstract idea.
The limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumers/buyers and/or financial services provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “enable a plurality of financial transactions comprising direct deposits, money transfers, debits, financed purchases, or point of sale loans between a plurality of parties” and “facilitating the financial transactions between the plurality of parties” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“the claims require use of "a computer program product,""blockchain,""a plurality of devices,""a graphical user interface" and "a visual code." See, e.g., claim 43. All of these amount to additional elements implementing the claimed invention with particular machines that are integral to the claimed invention. "
Examiner responds:
Examiner noted "a computer program product,""blockchain,""a plurality of devices," and "a graphical user interface" as additional elements. However, “visual code” is deemed part of the abstract idea.
The additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are described with a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computer, blockchain, and user interface technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
The rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Babcock (“QR CODE INITIATIVE: FRAUD DETECTION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220147970 A1).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pandhi (“INTELLIGENT INCENTIVES FOR INVOICE PAYMENT”, U.S. Patent: US 11321726 B1) proposes intelligent incentives for invoice payment are described. In an example, transaction data can be received from a device operable by a seller associated with a service provider and via a network transmission between the device and server computing device(s) associated with the service provider. The transaction data can be associated with a transaction between a buyer and the seller. The server computing device(s) can access, from a datastore associated with the server computing device(s) and based at least in part on receiving the transaction data, seller information associated with the seller and, based at least in part on the transaction data and the seller information, the server computing device(s) can generate an invoice for the transaction, wherein at least one term of the invoice is adaptable based at least in part on an operating condition of the seller.
Stegall (“ACCESSIBILITY OF INSTANT APPLICATION DATA VIA ASSOCIATED APPLICATION”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11064047 B1) teaches accessibility of instant application data via an associated application. In an example, a service provider can cause a first user interface associated with an instant application associated with a particular, discrete functionality of an application to be presented via a first user computing device of a user. The service provider can receive data via an interaction with the first user interface associated with the instant application. The service provider can receive a request to download the application from a second user computing device of the user, cause the application to be downloaded on the second user computing device of the user, and cause the data received via the interaction with the first user interface associated with the instant application to be associated with the application on the second user computing device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695