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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 3/5/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 18 are independent.
Claims 1, 10, 15, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 11, 16, and 20 are previously presented.
Claims 3, 5-8, and 12-14 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 remain rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should be found eligible in view of Example 34 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility examples because they recite an unconventional and non-generic combination which may be employed to suss out PANs or the like inputted by fraudsters attempting to obtain payouts to which they are not entitled through comparison to trusted data of an authentic payee held by the payor. Applicant argues that the claimed system unconventionally pairs microdeposit verification with account data comparison and shifts the locus of account data comparison to trusted data held by or originating with the payor in a putative payment transaction for such comparison and corresponding verification, enabling the verified transaction to be completed over an electronic payment network.
The argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument based on Example 34 is unpersuasive because the claims do not similarly improve the functioning of a computer or network, but instead apply generic computing to execute the abstract idea including verification of a payee. With regard to representative claim 1, the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. The majority of the claim limitations recite steps of the abstract idea itself. Applicant argues that the claimed invention unconventionally pairs microdeposit verification with account data comparison and shifts the locus of account data comparison to data held by the merchant payor. However, the argued features and benefits describe novelty in the abstract idea itself. The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. These features also are not indicative of a technical improvement because they are confined to the abstract realm. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. The additional elements merely recite generic computing technology used in their ordinary capacity, and thus the computer components merely amount to tools to implement the abstract verification process, rather than to improve computer or network technology. This does not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea which is independently abstract.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendment.
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, 3-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are directed to a method (process) or non-transitory computer-readable storage media (product), and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent process claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product claim 18. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A computer-implemented method for authentic payee verification for online payment transactions comprising, via one or more transceivers and/or processors:
performing a putative payee registration process for a merchant payor cash-out, withdrawal or disbursement, the registration process including receiving a personal account identifier from the putative payee;
linking the registration process to an existing authentic payee account including authentic payee data held by the payor;
initiating a deposit routed according to the personal account identifier;
enabling verifier access to deposit account data of a deposit account of the putative payee, the deposit account data including one or more data types that are comparable to the authentic payee data held by the payor for performing the verification;
confirming that the deposit was made to the deposit account based on the deposit account data;
comparing the deposit account data to the authentic payee data held by the payor to perform the verification that the putative payee is an authentic payee; and
based at least in part on the verification, completing the merchant payor cashout, withdrawal or disbursement via an electronic payment transaction between the payor and the authentic payee over an electronic payment network.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe payee verification for completing transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more transceivers and/or processors in claim 1 (preamble) is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 18 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: computer-implemented (preamble); online (preamble); one or more transceivers and/or processors (preamble); electronic payment; electronic payment network
Claim 18: non-transitory computer-readable storage media with instructions executable by a processor (preamble); electronic payment; electronic payment network
The computer hardware/software is/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 component. 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, claims 1 and 18 are 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)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0040] and [0069-0075] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-16, and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 18 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the personal account identifier is provided via a user device”. However, the user device providing information also amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are not patent-eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam (US 2021/0217016 A1) in view of Plaid Docs (“Identity API reference for Identity endpoints and webhooks”, 3/26/2023 WayBack Machine Archive, attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Putnam discloses a computer-implemented method and associated computer product for authentic payee verification for online payment transactions comprising, via one or more transceivers and/or processors (see abstract, Fig. 3, para. 0012):
performing a putative payee registration process for a merchant payor cash-out, withdrawal or disbursement, the registration process including receiving a personal account identifier from the putative payee (see para. 0020-0026, receiving user login credentials for external account);
linking the registration process to an existing authentic payee account including authentic payee data held by the payor (see para. 0020-0026, wherein the existing authentic payee account is, e.g. PayPal, Venmo, etc);
initiating a deposit routed according to the personal account identifier (see para. 0020-0026);
enabling verifier access to deposit account data of a deposit account of the putative payee, the deposit account data including one or more data types that are comparable to the authentic payee data held by the payor for performing the verification (see para. 0020-0026, wherein the verification platform monitors the external account);
confirming that the deposit was made to the deposit account based on the deposit account data (see para. 0020-0026, wherein the verification platform confirms the microdeposit has cleared);
based at least in part on verification, completing the merchant payor cashout, withdrawal or disbursement via an electronic payment transaction between the payor and the authentic payee over an electronic payment network (see para. 0020-0026, wherein the process is performed to permit an ACH payment, deposit, or withdrawal to the external account).
Putnam does not explicitly disclose, but Plaid Docs teaches comparing the deposit account data to the authentic payee data held by the payor to perform verification that the putative payee is an authentic payee (see pp. 1, 24-26, i.e., API endpoint /identity/match).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and product of Putnam to include the feature of Plaid Docs to match client identity with bank identity (see Plaid Docs pp. 1, 24-26).
Regarding claim 3, Plaid Docs teaches wherein the authentic payee data held by the payor includes an authentic payee name (see pp. 1, 24-26).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Plaid Docs teaches wherein the one or more data types includes putative payee name data, the comparison including comparing the putative payee name data to the authentic payee name to perform the verification of the authentic payee (see pp. 1, 24-26).
Regarding claim 5, Plaid Docs teaches wherein the comparison includes generating a name matching score based at least in part on how closely the putative payee name data matches the authentic payee name (see pp. 35-36).
Regarding claim 7, Putnam discloses wherein the one or more data types include historical transaction data (see para. 0020-0026).
Regarding claim 8, Plaid Docs teaches wherein the one or more data types include a government-issued identification (see pp. 35-36).
Regarding claim 10, Putnam discloses the merchant performing the confirmation based on banking records and performing the comparison (see para. 0020-0026).
Regarding claim 11, the combination set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein a payment processor initiates the deposit, enables the verifier access, performs the confirmation based on banking records (Putnam), performs the comparison including by generating a name matching score (Plaid Docs), and completes the electronic payment transaction (Putnam).
Regarding claim 12, Putnam discloses wherein the payment processor enables the verifier access via receipt of login credentials at an online or mobile interface for a corresponding account registered to an open banking service of the payment processor (see para. 0020-0026).
Regarding claim 13, Putnam discloses via the one or more processors and/or transceivers, the payment processor obtaining a use consent for the verification and the banking records from the putative payee (see para. 0020-0026, wherein the consent is implicit by the user supplying the login information).
Regarding claim 15, Putnam discloses wherein the initiating of the deposit is triggered by one or both of an online account opening and an account cash-out request (see para. 0020-0026).
Regarding claim 16, Putnam discloses wherein the confirmation is performed based on banking records associated with a demand deposit account of the putative payee (see para. 0020-0026).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Putnam (US 2021/0217016 A1) in view of Plaid Docs (“Identity API reference for Identity endpoints and webhooks”, 3/26/2023 WayBack Machine Archive, attached), further in view of Yu (US 2016/0086158 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim discloses wherein the personal account identifier is provided via a user device (Putnam), further comprising, via the one or more processors and/or transceivers and comparing the name matching score to at least one matching threshold (Plaid Docs).
Putnam in view of Plaid Docs does not explicitly disclose, but Yu teaches: requesting, based on initial computation of the verification, a device location of the user device, comparing the device location to address information of the deposit account data, completing the verification based at least in part on the comparison of the device location to address information (see para. 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Putnam further to include the feature taught by Yu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to facilitate verification of the receiver (see Yu, para. 0076).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam (US 2021/0217016 A1) in view of Plaid Docs (“Identity API reference for Identity endpoints and webhooks”, 3/26/2023 WayBack Machine Archive, attached), further in view of Hu (US 2012/0310828 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Putnam does not explicitly disclose, but Hu teaches wherein the personal account identifier is a personal account number corresponding to a debit card (see paras. 0029, 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Putnam to include the feature of Hu to allow a user account to be verified by entering a debit/ATM card number (see Hu, paras. 0029, 0033).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lott (US 2021/0295329 A1) discloses apparatuses, methods, program products, and for account verification. An apparatus includes a processor and a memory that stores code executable by the processor to receive a user's electronic credentials, use the received electronic credentials to verify an account for the user, and, in response to the account verification using the received electronic credentials failing, verify the user's account using one or more microdeposits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 W 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 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights