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 final office action in response to the application filed 13 July 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-15 and cancellation of Claims 2 and 11-12 have been received and are acknowledged.
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, 3-10, and 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the newly amended claim language “…recite patent-eligible subject matter because the claims recite limitations that are directed to technical processing performed by the electronic money business operator system in cooperation with the financial institution system…” (Applicant’s response, 9) Further referencing the Specification [54], [58], [67] [, Applicant assets that the newly amended claims “ …the improvement that "[a]n electronic money business operator may use the electronic money business operator system 30 to provide a funds settlement service based on monetary value information (e.g., points) (hereinafter referred to as the 'electronic money service')."… as the balance of the user's electronic money account is not the balance deposited from such user in advance to the electronic money business operator system 30, it will not be deemed as retained funds, and thus, the electronic money business operator may be exempt from the deposit obligations." …the balance of the electronic money account mentioned above is not the monetary value information equivalent to the funds actually deposited from the user to the electronic money business operator, but is instead a virtual balance based on the balance of the deposit account and/or credit card account….” (Applicant’s response, 8-10). Applicant asserts that the newly amended “synchronizing,” “completing,” and “ transmitting …and receiving..” steps, each “reflects the improvement disclosed in the Specification.” (Applicant’s response, 10). Based on these assertions of ‘reflecting’ “improvement disclosed in the Specification,” Applicant asserts that the instant claims recite “ …a practical application that improves upon prior systems such that the electronic money business operator may be exempt from the deposit obligations and is not merely the abstract idea of "electronic money settlement" (Office Action at p. 4) implemented on a generic computer….” (Applicant’s response, 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted previously and below. It is noted that Applicant’s own arguments are not technological but instead address a business challenge (i.e. the exemption of the electronic money business operator from deposit obligations – in which the electronic money business operator is a party to a commercial or legal interaction and the ‘exemption’ is a condition or ‘contract term’ in the interaction). At most this is an improvement to the abstract idea. As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that the prior art of Mitsumoto does not disclose the newly amended claim language.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejections below. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the recited claims. Applicant seems to be arguing the limitations and terms more narrowly than is recited and/or disclosed in the disclosure. Examiner must interpret the claims using broadest reasonable interpretation. As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-10, and 13-15 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, Claims 1 and 2-7 are directed to a process. Claims 8-10, 13-14 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:
1. (Currently Amended) An … money settlement method implemented by an … money business operator … of an … money business operator that provides an … money service, the method comprising, by the … money business operator system:
…, for a user who uses the … money service, an … money account of the user, the … money account linked to a deposit account of the user held by a financial institution…;
…, to the financial institution, a balance inquiry for a balance of the deposit account of the user and …, from the financial institution, a balance inquiry reply indicating the balance of the deposit account;
synchronizing a virtual balance of monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the balance of the deposit account;
… a settlement approval request to perform payment settlement by electronic money of a transaction between the user and a beneficiary party;
determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than a settlement amount of the settlement approval request;
completing the payment settlement between the user and the beneficiary party, in response to determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than the settlement amount;
…, to the financial institution, a request for remittance processing to transfer funds equivalent to the settlement amount from the deposit account of the user to an account of the beneficiary party and receiving, from the financial institution, a remittance completion notification of transfer of the funds from the deposit account of the user to the account of the beneficiary partyand
… the virtual balance of the monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the settlement amount.
8. (Currently Amended) An… money settlement method implemented by an … money business operator … of an … money business operator that provides an … money service, the method comprising, by the electronic money business operator …:
… for a user who uses the … money service, an … money account of the user, the… money account linked to of the user of a financial institution holding funds of the user other than the … money account;
… to the financial institution, a balance inquiry for a balance of the at least one account of the user and receiving, from the financial institution, a balance inquiry reply indicating the balance of the at least one account; [[and]]
synchronizing a virtual balance of monetary value information in the … money account based on the balance of the at least one account;
… a settlement approval request to perform payment settlement by … money of a transaction between the user and a beneficiary party;
determining that the virtual balance in the … money account is equal to or greater than a settlement amount of the settlement approval request;
completing the payment settlement between the user and the beneficiary party, in response to determining that the virtual balance in the … money account is equal to or greater than the settlement amount:
…, to the financial institution, a request for remittance processing to transfer funds equivalent to the settlement amount from the at least one account of the user to an account of the beneficiary party and …, from the financial institution, a remittance completion notification of transfer of the funds from the at least one account of the user to the account of the beneficiary party; and
… the virtual balance of the monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the settlement amount.
15. (Currently Amended) An electronic money business operator … of an … money business operator that provides an … money service, the … money business operator … comprising:
a … configured to … ,for a user who uses the … money service, an … money account of the user, the … money account linked to … a deposit account of the user held by a financial institution and
a … configured to:
…, to the financial institution, a balance inquiry for a balance of the deposit account of the user and …, from the financial institution, a balance inquiry reply indicating the balance of the deposit account;
synchronize virtually set a virtual balance of monetary value information in the … money account in the database to be linked to a based on the balance of the deposit account
… a settlement approval request to perform payment settlement by electronic money of a transaction between the user and a beneficiary party;
determine that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than a settlement amount of the settlement approval request;
complete the payment settlement between the user and the beneficiary party, in response to determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than the settlement amount;
…, to the financial institution, make a request for remittance processing to transfer funds equivalent to the settlement amount from the deposit account of the user to an account of the beneficiary party and receiving, from the financial institution, a remittance completion notification of transfer of the funds from the deposit account of the user to the account of the beneficiary party; and
… the virtual balance of the monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the settlement amount.
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 …synchronizing… determining… completing… 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 ( storing… transmitting… receiving… receiving… transmitting… updating..) 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, Claims 1 and 2-7 are directed to a process. Claims 8-10, 13-14 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 (3-7, 9-10, 13-14) introduce the additional elements of: clauses/limitations further defining elements including: virtually setting… (Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13); receiving… wherein transmitting… (Claims 3 and 13); wherein receiving… (Claims 4); wherein transmitting… (Claim 5); at least one account.. (Claim 9); wherein synchronizing…(Claim 10); 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, 3-10, and 13-15 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, 3-10, and 13-15 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
Claims 1 and 15
Mitsumoto discloses an electronic money settlement method and system implemented by an electronic money business operator system of an electronic money business operator that provides an electronic money service, the method comprising, by the electronic money business operator system:
Storing for a user who uses the electronic money service, an electronic money account of the user, the electronic money account linked to a deposit account of the user held by a financial institution; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 4 banking account system Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[4] electronic money system … bank account system… against user’s bank accounts… …[55-60] database… account balance tables… bank accounting system… )
transmitting, to the financial institution, a balance inquiry for a balance of the deposit account of the user and receiving, from the financial institution, a balance inquiry reply indicating the balance of the deposit account; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…check the account balance)
synchronizing a virtual balance of monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the balance of the deposit account; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 4 banking account system Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[55-60] database… account balance tables… electronic money management account balance..coincides with the electronic money management account balance actually set int eh bank… bank accounting system… )
receiving a settlement approval request to perform payment settlement by electronic money of a transaction between the user and a beneficiary party; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…authenticate …check the account balance)
determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than a settlement amount of the settlement approval request; (See at least Mitsumoto, [73] verifying that the bank account balance is no less than the amount of remittance ordered by User A)
completing the payment settlement between the user and the beneficiary party, in response to determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than the settlement amount; (See at least Mitsumoto, [73-78] verifying that the bank account balance is no less than the amount of remittance ordered by User A… generate a script for remittance deposit… transmit .. to user B transfer of electronic money … to user B)
transmitting, to the financial institution, a request for remittance processing to transfer funds equivalent to the settlement amount from the deposit account of the user to an account of the beneficiary party and receiving, from the financial institution, a remittance completion notification of transfer of the funds from the deposit account of the user to the account of the beneficiary party; and (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…authenticate …check the account balance…generate script for remittance deposit processing.. remittance transaction instruction…fund transfer instruction.. transfer fund account due for remittance (User A) > Electronic money management account (User B) [61] remittance processing… )
updating the virtual balance of the monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the settlement amount. (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…authenticate …check the account balance…generate script for remittance deposit processing.. )
Claim 8
Mitsumoto discloses an electronic money settlement method implemented by an electronic money business operator system of an electronic money business operator that provides an electronic money service, the method comprising, by the electronic money business operator system:
storing for a user who uses the electronic money service, an electronic money account of the user, the electronic money account linked to at least one account of the user of a financial institution holding funds of the user other than the electronic money account (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 4 banking account system Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[4] electronic money system … bank account system… against user’s bank accounts… …[55-60] database… account balance tables… bank accounting system… )
transmitting, to the financial institution, a balance inquiry for a balance of the at least one account of the user and receiving, from the financial institution, a balance inquiry reply indicating the balance of the at least one account; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…check the account balance)
synchronizing a virtual balance of monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the balance of the at least one account; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 4 banking account system Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing… remittance.. update .. increase the amount…[55-60] database… account balance tables… electronic money management account balance..coincides with the electronic money management account balance actually set int eh bank… bank accounting system… )
receiving a settlement approval request to perform payment settlement by electronic money of a transaction between the user and a beneficiary party; (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…authenticate …check the account balance)
determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than a settlement amount of the settlement approval request; (See at least Mitsumoto, [73] verifying that the bank account balance is no less than the amount of remittance ordered by User A)
completing the payment settlement between the user and the beneficiary party, in response to determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than the settlement amount: (See at least Mitsumoto, [73-78] verifying that the bank account balance is no less than the amount of remittance ordered by User A… generate a script for remittance deposit… transmit .. to user B transfer of electronic money … to user B)
transmitting, to the financial institution, a request for remittance processing to transfer funds equivalent to the settlement amount from the at least one account of the user to an account of the beneficiary party and receiving, from the financial institution, a remittance completion notification of transfer of the funds from the at least one account of the user to the account of the beneficiary party; and (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…authenticate …check the account balance…generate script for remittance deposit processing.. remittance transaction instruction…fund transfer instruction.. transfer fund account due for remittance (User A) > Electronic money management account (User B) [61] remittance processing… )
updating the virtual balance of the monetary value information in the electronic money account based on the settlement amount. (See at least Mitsumoto, Fig. 9 electronic money server, deposit processing…authenticate …check the account balance…generate script for remittance deposit processing.. )
Claim 3
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
receiving a communication from an electronic money app on an information communication terminal device of the user, wherein transmitting the balance inquiry includes transmitting the balance in response to receiving the communication (See at least Mitsumoto, [4] balance inquiry)
Claim 4
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein receiving the settlement approval request includes receiving the settlement approval request from a settlement terminal device and (See at least Mitsumoto, [51] input … remittance data… transmit button….)
the method further comprising sending, to the settlement terminal device, a settlement approval indicating approval of the payment settlement in response to determining that the virtual balance in the electronic money account is equal to or greater than a settlement amount of the request to perform payment 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… [73] verifying that the bank account balance is no less than the amount of remittance ordered by User A.)
Claim 5
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 4
Mitsumoto further discloses:
wherein transmitting the request for the remittance processing includes transmitting the request for remittance processing 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… [73-78] verifying that the bank account balance is no less than the amount of remittance ordered by User A… generate a script for remittance deposit… transmit .. to user B transfer of electronic money … to user B.)
Claim 6
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
Wherein updating the virtual balance includes, reducing the virtual balance based on the settlement amount (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 the remittance completion notification verifying, based on the remittance completion notification, whether the virtual balance of the electronic money account after reducing the virtual balance 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 includes a deposit account of the user and a credit card account of the user. (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 synchronizing 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… [55-60] database… account balance tables… electronic money management account balance..coincides with the electronic money management account balance actually set in the bank… bank accounting system… )
Claim 13
Mitsumoto discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 10.
Mitsumoto further discloses:
further comprising receiving 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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