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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed September 21, 2026 in which claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 21-31 are added. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21-31 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 21, 25 and 29 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 25 and 29 recite the limitation, “wherein the test deposit comprises a plurality of deposits sent to the first account, and wherein, responsive to determining that the monitored amounts match the respective amounts of the plurality of deposits sent to the first account,… owner details of the individual.” The terms "the monitored amounts " and “the respective amounts” lack antecedent basis. While a “a plurality of deposits” was introduced in the claim, they did not explicitly establish or introduce their “amounts” beforehand. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 8 and 15.
The claims 1, 3, 5 and 25-28 are directed to a system, claims 8, 10, 12 and 29-31 are directed to a method and claims 15, 17, 18 and 21-24 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : a memory, a communication interface configured to communicate with a partner device, a first transaction communication network, and a second transaction communication network that is separate and distinct from the first transaction communication network, and an electronic processor that is configured to perform an identity affirmation of an individual by communicating with a first entity over the first transaction communication network and communicating with a second entity over the second transaction communication network, and control the communication interface to output an identity affirmation message to the partner device based on the identity affirmation that is performed, wherein, to perform the identity affirmation of the individual, the electronic processor is configured to: control the communication interface to receive payment account information of the individual, responsive to receiving the payment account information of the individual, control the communication interface to send an identity test of a first account at the first entity via the first transaction communication network, the identity test based at least in part on the payment account information of the individual, wherein the identity test is a test deposit to the first account, control the communication interface to receive first data insights, first risk scores, and account information regarding the first account based on the identity test that is sent, responsive to receiving the payment account information of the individual, control the communication interface to query the second transaction communication network for account identity metadata of a second account at the second entity, the query based on the payment account information of the individual, control the communication interface to receive second data insights, second risk scores, account details, and identity data regarding the second account from the second transaction communication network, and determine whether the payment account information is owned by the individual based on the first data insights, the first risk scores, and the account information regarding the first account in addition to the second data insights, the second risk scores, the account details, and the identity data regarding the second account, and wherein, to output the identity affirmation message to the partner device based on the identity affirmation that is performed, the electronic processor is further configured to responsive to determining that the payment account information is owned by the individual, control the communication interface to output a deposit approval control signal to the partner device, and responsive to determining that the payment account information is not owned by the individual, control the communication interface to output a deposit disapproval control signal to the partner device. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging). Performing an identity affirmation of an individual is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0021]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar analysis can he extended to other independent claims 8 and 15 and hence the claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 15 also recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium that amounts to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18 and 21-31 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 23, 27 and 31 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 8 or 15 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 23, 27, and 31 recite the additional elements of a multi-rail access token, a transaction network, an interaction network, a value exchange network, and a data exchange network. A multi-rail access token, a transaction network, an interaction network, a value exchange network, and a data exchange network are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21-31 are ineligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
5. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 21-31. While some individual features of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 21-31 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 21-31. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
1) Ramirez (US 2017/0228730 A1) – This invention relates generally to secondary authorization processing for an electronic transaction, specifically the use of a secondary payment network to perform value added services for an electronic transaction Switched through a primary payment network.
2) Yang (US 2020/0387629 A1) – This invention relates generally to providing user notification when personal information is used in a speech controller. A method of providing user notification may include receiving information monitored for reference to personal information in a process of processing a user's query in a voice service, storing a personal information utilization history for each user and for each service based on the monitored information, determining the suitability of the reference to the personal information based on the monitored information, determining whether the personal information is included in a response when generating the response to the user's query, generating and providing guide information indicating that the personal information is included in the response if the personal information is included in the response, and providing the response to the user's query based on feedback from the user for the guide information.
3) Ganesan (US 2018/0197167 A1) – This invention relates generally to a network/system and method for providing for person-to-person payments, where payment can be provided to any payee (whether pre-registered or not) based on the preferences of the payee, but without the payer needing to know those preferences or having to provide them for purposes of completing the transaction.
4) Khatwani (US 2021/0279734 A1) - This invention relates generally to enabling resource providers to interact with access credentials that the resource provider is typically not capable of interaction with. In some embodiments, a virtual account identifier is issued in association with the access credential, the virtual account identifier being issued by an authorization provider which is different from the authorization provider having issued the access credential. The virtual account identifier may be provided to the resource provider in lieu of the access credential. The resource provider may then generate an authorization request message that includes the virtual account identifier, which may be routed to the authorization provider associated with the virtual account identifier. That authorization provider may then conduct the transaction using the access credential with the authorization provider having issued the access credential.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed dated 09/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
7. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 1 (page 11), Applicant argues that, “Applicant does not concede that the claims, as amended, recite an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained in the 101 analysis above, the steps of the claim, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that, covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging). Performing an identity affirmation of an individual is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
8. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 11-14), Applicant argues that, “The amended claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using 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 MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology.
All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. Confirming whether the payment account information is legitimate is a part of risk management and does not qualify for the technical improvement. Performing identity affirmation is a part of an abstract idea. A verification result indicating a high or low likelihood whether the individual has ownership of the account is also a part of an abstract idea. Two distinct transaction communication networks also do not make a technical improvement. The claim does not improve the underlying functioning of the computer system or the transaction network itself. Instead, it uses generic computer technology as a tool to automate the financial process of identity verification.
The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0021]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
9. Applicant further states that (pages 13-14), “The USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, claim 1, is instructive.”
The Examiner does not see the parallel between claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of Example 42. Further, claim 1 of Example 42 is found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because: “The claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).” (Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, pages 18-19).
The current claims do not standardize a format, automatically generate a message, or transmit a message to all users. Instead the instant claims perform the abstract idea of verifying an identity and approving/disapproving a deposit. Therefore, Example 42 does not apply.
10. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2B, (pages 14-17), Applicant states that, “The amended claims recite significantly more”
One of the guidelines issued by the Office to determine if the claims recite additional elements which are not well understood, routine or conventional and hence, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, is the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter).
According to the Berkheimer memo,
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The claim simply applies the abstract idea using generic computer elements as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements in the claim are a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor. As per the rejection above, the specification describes the additional elements of a memory, a communication interface, a partner device, a first transaction communication network, a second transaction communication network and an electronic processor to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0021]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. Executing a "test deposit" and querying an identity database are standard, well-known methods of account verification. Combining them onto an identity server does not create a patentable "inventive concept". There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
11. Applicant further states that (pages 14-15), “The USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Example 35, claim 3, is also instructive.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in claim 3 represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud prevention that performs identity verification in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way, even though the steps use a combination of well‐known components (an ATM and mobile communication device).
In contrast, the current invention does not describe any problems similar to fraud by impersonation at an ATM. Nor do the claims describe any technical steps such as generating an image with encrypted code data to overcome fraudulent impersonators. Instead, the alleged improvement recited in the claims is an abstract idea. Hence, the claimed subject matter does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not subject matter eligible.
12. Applicant further states that (pages 16-17) the currently amended claims are analogous to the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Example 36, claims 2 and 3.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims 2 and 3 of Example 36 are eligible because analyzing the claim elements in combination demonstrates the claim is a technology‐based solution to address a problem arising in the realm of computer vision systems rather than well‐understood, routine, conventional activity or simply limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
In contrast, the alleged improvement recited in the claims is an abstract idea. Executing a "test deposit" and querying an identity database are standard, well-known methods of account verification. Combining them onto an identity server does not create a patentable "inventive concept". Hence, the claimed subject matter does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not subject matter eligible.
13. Applicant further states that (pages 17-18), “New claims 21-31 add further meaningful limits. These are further meaningful limits that reinforce patent eligibility.”
Dependent claims 21-31 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18 and 21-31 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, the rejection of pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is hereby maintained by the Examiner.
Examiner Request
14. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BHAVIN D SHAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
September 25, 2026
