DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 3 September 2024
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 3 September 2024 amending claims 12 and 15 has been received and acknowledged. It is noted that a second copy of the original claims, specification, abstract and Applicant’s response to Pre-Exam formalities were entered in the file on 2 April 2025. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has examined the amended claims entered in the preliminary amendment.
The applicant's claim for benefit of as a 371 of PCT JP2023006857 filed 24 Feb 2023 and as Foreign Priority of JP 2022-032121 filed 2 Mar 2022 has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) 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. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of electronic money settlement. In the instant case, Claims1-7 are directed to a process. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system. Claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Money settlement is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
[Claim 1] An … money settlement method implemented by an … money business operator … that provides an …money service, the method comprising, by the … money business operator …:
managing, for each user who uses the …money service, an … money account of the user and a deposit account of the user by associating the … money account and the deposit account with each other;
… setting a balance of the … money account to be linked to a balance of the deposit account; and
making a request for remittance processing to a financial institution system such that, in response to an … money settlement, a money amount for the settlement is directly remitted from the deposit account associated with the … money account to a deposit account at a financial institution of a beneficiary who should receive the money amount through the settlement.
[Claim 8] An … money settlement method implemented by an … money business operator system that provides an …money service, the method comprising, by the … money business operator …:
managing, for each user who uses the … money service, an … money account of the user and at least one account other than the … money account by associating the …money account and the at least one account with each other;and
… setting a balance of the … money account based on a balance of the at least one account.
[Claim 15] An … money business operator … that provides an … money service, comprising:
a … configured to manage, for each user who uses the … money service, an … money account of the user and a deposit account of the user by associating the … money account and the deposit account with each other; and
A …r configured to:
… set a balance of the …money account in the … to be linked to a balance of the deposit account; and
make a request for remittance processing to a financial institution system such that, in response to an … money settlement, a money amount for the settlement is directly remitted from the deposit account associated with the … money account to a deposit account at a financial institution of a beneficiary who should receive the money amount through the settlement.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of managing… money account;…setting a balance;…making a request… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims1-7 are directed to a process. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system. Claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (system…electronic…processor..database… ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [50-53] Fig. 1; device… server… database… computer system… processor)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-7, 9-14) introduce the additional elements of: wherein clauses further defining elements including virtually setting… (Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13); making a request.. (Claim 5); at least one account.. (Claim 9); credit amount setting… (Claim 14) and additional steps of receiving.. approval.. (Claim 4); reducing…(Claim 6); verifying…(Claim 7) These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [50-53] Fig. 1; device… server… database… computer system… processor)
Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040210530 A1, Mitsumoto et al. hereinafter referred to as Mitsumoto.
Claims 1, 8 and 15
Mitsumoto discloses an electronic money settlement method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system implemented by an electronic money business operator system that provides an electronic money service, the method comprising, by the electronic money business operator system:
managing, for each user who uses the electronic money service, an electronic money account of the user and a deposit account of the user by associating the electronic money account and the deposit account with each other; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount… )
virtually setting a balance of the electronic money account to be linked to a balance of the deposit account; and (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…)
making a request for remittance processing to a financial institution system such that, in response to an electronic money settlement, a money amount for the settlement is directly remitted from the deposit account associated with the electronic money account to a deposit account at a financial institution of a beneficiary who should receive the money amount through the settlement. (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…)
Claim 2
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the virtually setting includes virtually setting the balance of the electronic money account of the user based on the balance of the deposit account obtained by making a balance inquiry about the deposit account of the user to the financial institution system. (See at least Mitsumoto, [4] balance inquiry)
Claim 3
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the virtually setting includes making a balance inquiry about the deposit account of the user if there is a communication from an electronic money app on an information communication terminal device of the user. (See at least Mitsumoto, [4] balance inquiry)
Claim 4
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
further comprising, by the electronic money business operator system, receiving a settlement approval request from a settlement terminal device in the electronic money settlement, and (See at least Mitsumoto, [51] input … remittance data… transmit button….)
sending, to the settlement terminal device, a settlement approval indicating approval of the settlement based on the balance of the electronic money account. (See at least Mitsumoto, [51-52] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing….)
Claim 5
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 4
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the making a request for the remittance processing includes sending a remittance request to the financial institution system based on the settlement approval. (See at least Mitsumoto, [51-52] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing….)
Claim 6
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
further comprising, by the electronic money business operator system, reducing the balance of the electronic money account according to the money amount for the settlement. (See at least Mitsumoto, [51-52] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing….)
Claim 7
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 6.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
further comprising, upon receiving a remittance completion notification indicating that the financial institution system has completed the remittance processing, by the electronic money business operator system, verifying, based on the remittance completion notification, whether the balance of the electronic money account after the reduction matches the balance of the deposit account. (See at least Mitsumoto, [51-54] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing…[65] ..update balance… transmit a completion notification… .)
Claim 9
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 8.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the at least one account is at least one of the user's deposit account or the user's credit card account. (See at least Mitsumoto, [51-54] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing…[65-66] ..update balance… transmit a completion notification…fund transfer source..user A’s electronic money account due for remittance… ordinary deposit.. is the user B’s bank account… )
Claim 10
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 9.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the virtually setting the balance includes virtually setting the balance based on a balance of the deposit account and a credit balance of the credit card account. (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[3] electronic money… each user’s account in a bank… or credit allowed by a credit company)
Claim 11
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 10.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the virtually setting the balance includes virtual setting the balance such that there is a link to a fluctuation in the balance of the deposit account. (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[3] electronic money… each user’s account in a bank… or credit allowed by a credit company)
Claim 12
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the virtually setting the balance includes virtually setting the balance such that there is a link to a fluctuation in the credit balance of the credit card account. (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[3] electronic money… each user’s account in a bank… or credit allowed by a credit company)
Claim 13
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 12.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the virtually setting the balance includes, by the electronic money business operator system, setting the balance of the electronic money account based on a credit amount setting request sent from an electronic money app on an information communication terminal device of the user. (See at least Mitsumoto, [27] user terminal [51-52] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing…[53] application program….)
Claim 14
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 13.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein the credit amount setting request is prepared based on a credit amount approval indicating approval of a credit amount responding to a credit amount approval request sent to a credit card business operator system by the electronic money app. (See at least Mitsumoto, [3] electronic money… each user’s account in a bank… or credit allowed by a credit company) [27] user terminal [51-52] input … remittance data… transmit button…transaction controller… subtracts electronic money equivalent to the amount input… from the electronic money balance…script for remittance deposit processing…[53] application program….)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6032857, Electronic money system
US 20210019718 A1 Real Time Digital Cash Management System
US 20140052631 A1, Payment module, payment method program, and information recording medium
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights