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
Claims 1, 3-6, 17 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. However, 35 U.S.C. 112a rejection is maintained below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103a rejection based upon the newly amended claim language is withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “…at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to: generate a platform that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device;”.
According to the specification, “[0015] Disclosed embodiments may include a system comprising: … at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to: access a platform that enables payment initiation;” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the specification describes a processor that executes instructions to access a platform that enables payment initiation, but does not provide a description as claimed of how the platform is generated or produced. In a computing environment, it is maintained that the function of “generating a platform” can also connote an output of data, automation of instructions, a process, performance of steps, a program or an algorithm that is performed by the processor. This is different from the specification which describes instructions that are intended to access a platform. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the specification, accessing which can connote using the platform rather than generating it.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
8. In the instant case, claim 1 and 10 are directed to a system and claim 17 is directed to a method
9. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “making payment on a credit card account with another credit card account” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity based upon concepts relating to managing transactions between people or relating to sales activity in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
10. Claim 1 recites, “receive,…,a requested transaction from a first account, wherein the first account is a credit account; receive,…,transaction data associated with the first account and the requested transaction; and record the transaction data …;..review,…, the transaction data …; and validate,…, the requested transaction based on the transaction data; …receive the requested transaction …; and send funds … based on the requested transaction; …
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “a memory” and “at least one processor” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implement the acts of making payment on a credit card account with another credit card account.
12. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of implementing a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g. memory and processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
13. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
14. Claims 2-9 do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Claim 10 recites a memory and at least a processor and has similar issues to claim 1.
16. Claims 11-16 do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Claim 17 provides the method of making payment on a credit card account with another credit card account” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity based upon concepts relating to managing transactions between people or relating to sales activity. Claim 17 has the same issue as claim 1, that being not having an additional element or combination of elements that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Claims 18-20 also do not providing additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights