DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on July 22, 2026.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 14, and 16 have been canceled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-21 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that limitations pointed out as abstract idea fail to express an idea. Remarks at 10. The rejection has been clarified.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite “any of the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity enumerated in the M.P.E.P.” Remarks at 10. As noted in the rejection, the claims recite both a fundamental economic practice and commercial interactions. When viewing claim 1 as a whole, the claim is reciting a method of making a payment.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 provides “a practical application through a technical improvement to the functioning of peer-to-peer interactions with user devices by enabling account identification retrieval using near-field communication” and refers to paragraph 0003 of the Specification. Remarks at 11. Applicant asserts that the claim allows for the elimination of the requirement for human entry of account information and the requirement that both parties belong to a particular transfer platform. Id. However, Applicant is describing a business problem that is solved with the use of a computer, but not by improving the computer.
Applicant further argues that “[a]t the time of the effective filing date, March 2022, conducting peer-to-peer interactions via antenna(s) where one device is ‘not associated with’ or otherwise ‘devoid’ of the application being used was a novel technical solution to (1) and (2). For example, the Mobile Payments on Commercial Off-the Shelf (MPoC) standard, which enables tap-to-pay capabilities, was released on November 2022, eight months after the effective filing date of the present application.” Remarks at 12. However, novelty of an invention is not a consideration in eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Furthermore, Applicant has not invented or improved short or long range antennas or related technology. Instead, these are existing technology that are used to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the “combination of additional elements are unconventional.” Remarks at 13. Applicant asserts that “[t]he claimed use of near-field communication to retrieve the second user account identifier from the second user device, where the second user device is not associated with the transfer application (or otherwise device of it) was an unconventional approach at the effective filing date that provides an inventive step.” Id. at 14. Applicant is asserting that this feature is novel. However, novelty and nonobviousness do not have any relevance to the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) (“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”).
Applicant further argues that “a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity must be supported by” one of four types of evidence. Remarks at 14. Because the rejection does not assert that any of the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, no evidence is required.
As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 11, 2026 has been 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 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, and 21 which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 13, 15, and 17-20, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, and 21 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method comprising:
interacting, by a first user device, with a second user device, the interacting being a tap interaction between the first user device and the second user device establishing near-field communications between a first short range antenna of the first user device and a second short range antenna of the second user device;
responsive to establishing near-field communications between the first user device and the second user device, retrieving, by a transfer application executing on the first user device from the second user device, through the near-field communication from the second short range antenna of the second user device, a second user account identifier associated with a second user account, wherein the second user device is not associated with the transfer application managed by a transfer server; and
transmitting, by the transfer application executing on the first user device to a processing network using a long range antenna of the first user device, a push transfer message comprising at least an amount and the second user account identifier,
wherein the transfer application on the first user device is associated with a first user account managed by a first authorizing entity computer,
wherein the amount is debited to the first user account, wherein the push transfer message instructs transfer of the amount from the first user account to the second user account as identified by the second user account identifier,
wherein the processing network transmits the push transfer message to a second authorizing entity computer that credits the amount to the second user account associated with the second user account identifier.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first user device is a mobile phone and the second user device is a payment card associated with the second user account.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the push transfer message is an original credit transaction message.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first user device is a first mobile phone and the second user device is a second mobile phone.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein a communication network between the first user device, the second user device and a server managing the transfer application is an open network such that the second user device is devoid of the transfer application.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount includes one or more of a fiat currency, a digital currency, or a cryptocurrency.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
launching the transfer application on the first user device;
displaying, by the transfer application on the first user device, instructions for funds transfer on a graphical user interface;
receiving, by the transfer application via the graphical user interface displayed on the first user device, the amount and a request to transfer the amount to the second user device; and
transmitting, by the first user device, a message to the second user device asking the second user device to be brought in close proximity of the first user device; and
detecting the second user device subsequent to transmitting the message.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
launching the transfer application on the first user device;
receiving, by the transfer application on the first user device, the amount and a request to transfer the amount to the second user device; and
displaying, by the transfer application on the first user device, a message on the first user device asking the first user device to be brought in close proximity of the second user device; and
detecting the second user device subsequent to transmitting the message.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the first user device, scripts installing the transfer application on the first user device; and
associating, on the first user device, a link between the transfer application and a first user account managed by a first authorizing entity computer, wherein an identifier for the first user account is stored on the transfer application on the first user device.
21. A method comprising:
interacting, by a first user device, with a second user device, the interacting being a tap interaction between the first user device and the second user device establishing near-field communications between a first short range antenna of the first user device and a second short range antenna of the second user device;
responsive to establishing near-field communications between the first user device and the second user device, retrieving, by a transfer application executing on the first user device from the second user device, through the near-field communication from the second short range antenna of the second user device, a second user account identifier associated with a second user account, wherein the second user device is devoid of the transfer application managed by a transfer server; and
transmitting, by the transfer application executing on the first user device to a processing network using a long range antenna of the first user device, a push transfer message comprising at least an amount and the second user account identifier,
wherein the transfer application on the first user device is associated with a first user account managed by a first authorizing entity computer, wherein the amount is debited to the first user account,
wherein the push transfer message instructs transfer of the amount from the first user account to the second user account as identified by the second user account identifier,
wherein the processing network transmits the push transfer message to a second authorizing entity computer that credits the amount to the second user account associated with the second user account identifier.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to payments. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it involves the processing of payments and a commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device (i.e., a transfer application on a first user device) is needed to implement the claimed process. The other claimed additional elements are also existing technology used to implement the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Kheradpir et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0112862 A1. This reference teaches peer-to-peer payment registration and activation.
Kimberg, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0363762 A1. This reference teaches an electronic system for mobile open payments.
Suresh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0374709 A1. This reference teaches the creation of restricted mobile accounts. A first user device may request a provisioning system to create a restricted mobile payment account on a second user device.
Dhodapkar et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,909,525 B1. This reference teaches account actions based on interactions with NFC-enabled card.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights