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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 31 March 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 8-9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome a 101 rejection. These rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 112 and 103, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims merely involve an abstract idea and are not directed to it. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims set forth a series of steps for transferring funds by evaluating time limits associated with requests. As a whole the claims is considered directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because it demonstrates a series of instructions or rules for performing a commercial interaction, i.e. funds transfers.
The instant application’s claims are not factually similar to example 39 because an abstract idea is recited and the claims do not in any way relate to training a neural network.
Applicant argues that the additional elements transform the claim into a practical application and amount to significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims set forth a high level link to a system environment where information is received, processed and transmitted based on a series of observations and evaluations. The steps are merely performed “via the financial institution app” or occur within the environment. The use of a computer or computerized environment in a generalized fashion does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the use of a computer to make determinations. The amended claims remain ineligible under 101, see updated grounds of rejection set forth below.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to teach the amended claims as a whole. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. See below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8-14 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8-14 and 18-19 recite the limitations “the resource request”, “the updated funds request” and “the updated resource request” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. A resource request is no longer cited in the independent claims, instead a funds request is. It is unclear if the resource request is the funds request or another request. For examination purposes the claims are interpreted as referencing a resource request. An updated funds request is not introduced in Claim 8. It is unclear if the updated funds request is the request for additional time or some other request. Clarification and correction is required. The updated resource request is not introduced in claim 8 and it is unclear if this is an updated funds request, a request for additional time or some other request. Clarification and correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to systems and a method which are statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The independent claims recite– a processor interface and memory device storing executable code that causes the processor to receive a funds request for a mobile interaction, process the request by transmitting the request to a second user who has a set amount of time to respond where the mobile interaction comprises transferring funds, based on the transmission, determining that the second user has added a mobile calendar reminder to storage, receiving a request for additional time, determining a new amount of time based on the predetermine time and request for additional time, after the new time is complete, ascertaining whether a response has been received, if it has not transmitting a updated request, if it has terminating the request and transmitting a notification to the first user indicating the updated request or termination of the request. As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions describing subject matter relating to agreements including sales activities, behaviors and business relations). The specification describes that the system is intended to allow users to send and receive funds, request funds and complete transactions with vendors via banking applications. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite Additional elements including a processor, communication interface coupled to the processor and memory device storing executable code causing the processor to perform the described methodology for receiving, processing, transmitting, determining, ascertaining, transmitting, terminating and transmitting. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally apply the concept of sending and receiving information in a networked mobile device and computer system environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or in a computerized environment is not demonstration of integration into a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer systems are treated as MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235); and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely narrows the abstract idea by describing what the funds request comprises, what the mobile device is, if the request is terminated a second request is received, describing that a user selects the time limit, where data and reminders are stored, describing that when a response is received the processor terminates the request before the time limit is complete, and that the transmission issues notifications via push, text, email or pop-up. The additional elements of the environment are described including the mobile device, storage, and types of notifications. The elements performing various business processes and describing the environment are not sufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. They are considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (See MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 2014/0366042) in view of Scarborough et al. (US 2017/0237820) further in view of Lindsey et al. (US 2022/0114633).
As per Claims 1, 8 and 15 Chan teaches:
A computer system and method for network based data transmission and for transmitting an updated resource request for a mobile interaction, comprising: at least one processor, a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to (Chan in at least Figs. 1, 4, 9, 13 and 16 illustrate a computer system and method for network based data transmission, the system comprising processor(s), interface and coupled memory storing executable instructions):
receive a request, from a mobile device of a first user, for a mobile interaction (Chan in at least [0067-0068, 0086, 0089, 0090-0091, 0109, 0111, 0113, 0141, 0161-0164, 0192, 0194-0195, 0197, 0208-0213] describe receiving requests for interaction from a mobile device);
based on the request being transmitted to the mobile device of the second user, determine that the second user has added a mobile calendar reminder to a storage location of the mobile device of the second user (Chan in at least [0043, 0086, 0106, 0164-0166, 0197-0198, 0216] describes receiving responses from mobile devices of users in response to requests and [0039] describes receiving calendar events from calendar application, including reminders, through a sampling daemon);
based on if the response has been received, terminate the request from the mobile device of the first user (Chan in at least [0043, 0086, 0106, 0164-0166, 0197-0198, 0216] describes receiving responses from mobile devices of users in response to requests, if a “never” response is received, the application manager can delete the high priority rush notification/request and any associated push notifications stored, [0116] describes transmitting a termination to the sampling daemon) ; and
receive from the second user, a request for additional time to send the response to the request; determine, based on the predetermined amount of time and the request for additional time, a new amount of time to send the response to the request (Chan in at least [0047, 0051, 00920131-0138, 0168, 0191, 0219] describes the ability to receive new entries, updating existing entries including times associated with the requests and content so that a new or updated option or time can be stored
transmit a notification to the mobile device of the first user indicating transmission of the updated request or termination of the resource request (Chan in at least [0032, 0038, 0116, 0148, 0153-0154, 0158, 0160, 0163, 0168, 0174, 0179-0180, 0216] describe transmitting termination notifications as well as notifications indicating an update or change).
Chan in at least [0043, 0086, 0106, 0164-0166, 0197-0198, 0216] describes receiving responses from mobile devices of users in response to requests. Chan does not explicitly recite transmitting the request to a second user’s mobile device or that they have a set amount of time to respond, that after the set amount of time determining whether a response has been received and in response to a lack of reply transmitting an updated request. However, Scarborough teaches a task execution for enhanced data access where different devices with different access rights to resources can be identified and different protocols are used to determine access. Scarborough further teaches:
process the request for the mobile interaction by transmitting the request for the mobile interaction to a mobile device of a second user in which the second user has a first predetermined amount of time to send a response to the request (Scarborough in at least [0051, 0088, 0115, 0128] describes that in response to requests for interaction/access transmitting communications indicative of a request to respond to a second mobile device, a time period for response is defined with the communication);
after the first predetermined amount of time is complete, ascertain whether the response has been received from the mobile device of the second user (Scarborough in at least [0051, 0088, 0115, 0128] describe and at least Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate that after a predetermined amount of time, the system evaluates if a response has been received);
based on if the response has not been received, transmit the updated request for the mobile interaction to the mobile device of the second user including a second predetermined amount of time to send the response to the request (Scarborough in at least [0051, 0088, 0115, 0128] describe how if a response communication is not received the system may reconfigure access rights and or permissions and/or may transmit another communication, e.g. an updated resource request);
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity based initiation system to include the techniques for using response and time based rules to determine next steps like transmitting/routing requests, evaluating if a response has been received and transmitting further information because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. The combination enables more secure resource access and exchange while also improving information retrieval efficiency (Scarborough [0002]).
Scarborough in at least [0042, 0109, 0174] requests for payment and providing payment information. Neither Chan nor Scarborough explicitly recite that the requests are funds requests received via a financial app installed on the mobile device of a first users, using the financial app to process the request and transferring funds via an interactions. However, Lindsey teaches a computer based system to provide actionable interfaces on devices to perform financial interactions. Lindsey further teaches:
receive a funds request from a mobile device of a first user via a financial institution app installed on the mobile device of the first user, for a mobile interaction, process, via the financial institution app, the funds request (Lindsey in at least [0056-0057 and 0059 describes receiving requests to transfer funds via a financial application on a mobile electronic device)
wherein the mobile interaction comprises transferring funds to a first account associated with the first user from a second account associated with the second user (Lindsey in at least [0056-0057 and 0059] describes transferring funds between user accounts via a financial application on users’ electronic devices);
receive from the second user via the financial institution app, a request considering time to send the response to the funds request; determine, based on the predetermined amount of time and the requested time, a new amount of time to send the response to the funds request (Lindsey in at least [0056-0057, 0059, 0074-0076] describes a predetermined amount of time associated with a funds request as well as a sufficient time and a maximum amount of time that may be used to wait for contributors to respond to invitations)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to transmit data over a network to include techniques for funds requests and transfers where time considerations are utilized to assess and determine when to transmit funds because combination enables a network of devices that facilitate communication and resource sharing via interfaces among a wide range of users.
As per Claims 2 and 9 Chan further teaches:
wherein the mobile device of the first user and the mobile device of the second user is a cellular device, computer, or tablet (Chan in at least Figs. 1, 4, 9, 13 and 16 illustrate a mobile device that could be any cellular or computer device);
Chan does not explicitly recite requesting funds or exchanging funds between users. However, Scarborough further teaches:
wherein the resource request comprises a request for a specified amount of funds (Scarborough in at least [0042, 0109, 0174] requests for payment of a set amount and providing payment information).
Scarborough is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above.
As per Claims 3, 10 and 16 Chan does not teach but Scarborough further teaches:
wherein the first user selects the first predetermined amount of time and the second predetermined amount of time (Scarborough in at least [0003, 0022, 0051, 0102, 0110, 0114, 0128, 0185] describe defining time periods for actions, requests and responses).
Scarborough is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above.
As per Claims 4, 11 and 17 Chan further teaches:
wherein the mobile device of the second user stores the mobile calendar reminder in a calendar application on the mobile device of the second user (Chan in at least [0039] describes receiving calendar events from calendar application, including reminders, through a sampling daemon and storing data on the mobile device and applications in at least Figs. 1, 4, 9, 13 and 16).
As per Claim 5 Chan in at least [0043, 0086, 0106, 0164-0166, 0197-0198, 0216] describes receiving responses from mobile devices of users in response to requests, if a “never” response is received, the application manager can delete the high priority rush notification/request and any associated push notifications stored, [0116] describes transmitting a termination to the sampling daemon. Chan does not explicitly recite that when terminated a second request is received. However, Scarborough further teaches:
wherein, if the processor identifies a trigger, a second resource request is received from the mobile device of the first user (Scarborough in at least [0051, 0088, 0115, 0128] describe how if a response communication is not received or if certain inputs are received the system may reconfigure access rights and or permissions and/or may transmit another communication, e.g. a second resource request) .
Scarborough is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above.
As per Claim 12 Chan further teaches:
wherein, the mobile device of the second user stores an updated mobile calendar reminder in the calendar application on the mobile device of the second user (Chan in at least [0039] describes receiving calendar events from calendar application, including reminders, through a sampling daemon and storing data and updates on the mobile device and applications in at least Figs. 1, 4, 9, 13 and 16).
As per Claims 6, 13 and 19 Chan further teaches:
wherein the processor terminates the resource request, before the first predetermined amount of time or the second predetermined amount of time is complete, when the response is received from the mobile device of the second user (Chan in at least [0043, 0086, 0106, 0164-0166, 0197-0198, 0216] describes receiving responses from mobile devices of users in response to requests, if a “never” response is received, the application manager deletes the high priority rush notification/request and any associated push notifications stored, [0116] describes transmitting a termination to the sampling daemon) .
As per Claims 7, 14 and 20 Chan further teaches:
wherein the processor transmits the notification via push notification, text message, email, or pop-up banner (Chan in at least [0007, 0020, 0021, 0022, 0023, 0031, 0086, 0104, 0140-0191] describe transmitting a variety of push notifications).
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights