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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/24/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/20/2024, which is a CIP of application 18/064454, wherein:
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a ledger management subsystem to maintain a ledger of account balances” in claim 10;
“a communication subsystem to transmit a request ” in claims 10 and 13;
“a payment subsystem to present to the customer” in claim 10;
“a promise-to-pay subsystem to determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed” in claims 10 and 11;
“a multipay subsystem to: present to the customer at least two different payment options” in claims 15 and 16;
“an authentication subsystem to authenticate the customer” in claim 14;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof is as follows:
“a ledger management subsystem to maintain a ledger of account balances” in claim 10, is shown in fig. 7 as “a ledger management module 704” of the computer-readable storage medium 702, and described in para. 0083 as “ledger management module 704 maintains a ledger of account balances of each of a plurality of ledger accounts”, and the specification further states in paras. 0082-0084 that the computing system 700 includes a processor 718 and computer readable storage medium 702 that includes ledger management module 704;
“a communication subsystem to manage digital communications” in claims 10 and 13, is shown in fig. 7 as “communication management module 708” of the computer-readable storage medium 702, and described in para. 0083 as “communication management module 708 may manage digital communications between a customer and a payee or payees”, and the specification further states in paras. 0082-0084 that the computing system 700 includes a processor 718 and computer readable storage medium 702 that includes communications management module 708;
“a payment subsystem to present multiple payment options to the customer” in claim 10, is shown in fig. 7 as “Payment Module 730 consisting of Multipay Management Module 735 and Partial Payment Module 737” of the computer-readable storage medium 702, and described in para. 0087 as “payment module 730 presents multiple payment options to a customer”, and the specification further states in paras. 0082-0086 that the computing system 700 includes a processor 718 and computer readable storage medium 702 that includes payment module 730 including multipay management module 735 and partial payment module 737;
“a promise-to-pay subsystem to determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed” in claims 10 and 11, is described in para. 00112 as “the promise-to-pay subsystem may monitor the scheduled partial payments as they are made on each respective schedule partial payment date”, and the specification further states in para. 00113 that “computer-readable storage medium 1502, such as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, may include various hardware, software, and/or hardware/software combination modules or subsystems”;
“a multipay subsystem to:…” in claims 15 and 18, is shown in fig. 7 as “Multipay Management Module 735 and Partial Payment Management Module 737 of Payment Module 730” of the computer-readable storage medium 702, and described in para. 0088 as “multipay management module 735 may facilitate a payment to a payee…and partial payment management module 737 may determine that a total amount owed has been cumulatively received via a plurality of partial payments”, and the specification further states in paras. 0082-0084 that the computing system 700 includes a processor 718 and computer readable storage medium 702 that includes payment module 730 including multipay management module 735 and partial payment module 737;
“an authentication subsystem to authenticate the customer” in claim 14, is shown in fig. 7 as “Authentication Module 710” of the computer-readable storage medium 702, and described in para. 0084 as “a customer is presented with an opportunity to authenticate via the authentication module 710” and the specification further states in paras. 0082-0084 that the computing system 700 includes a processor 718 and computer readable storage medium 702 that includes authentication module 710.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of Application 18/989831 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 12,182,779 and over claims 1-5 of US Patent No. 11,526,858. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘779 Patent and the ‘858 Patent recite all the limitations of Claim 1 of Application 18/989831 as indicated in the comparison table below.
Claims of Application 18/989831
Claims of US 12,182,779
Claims of US 11,526,858
1.A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
displaying, on the electronic display, a plurality of available payment options for a payor to make a payment owed to a payee;
receiving, from the payor, a selection of at least two different payment options to pay the payee, wherein at least one of the selected payment options comprises a cash payment;
providing an identification code to a portable electronic device for the payor to deposit the cash payment into a digital cash account, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the payor for loading into a digital cash account of the payor;
completing the at least two different payment options when the sum of the at least two different payment options are verified and sum to the payment owed to the payee.
1. A system, comprising: a computer processor; a memory device in communication with the computer processor; a communication network in communication with the computer processor; a data storage device communicatively connected to the computer processor;
a ledger management subsystem to maintain a ledger of account balances of each of a plurality of ledger accounts within the data storage;
a communication subsystem to manage digital communications between a customer and a payee via the communication network, wherein the communication subsystem is configured to transmit a request for the customer to make a payment for a total amount to the payee;
a payment subsystem to present multiple payment options to the customer, via a rendered graphical user interface on an electronic display of a portable electronic device, the graphical user interface facilitating payment by the customer to pay the total amount to the payee, wherein the payment options include at least:
i. a card payment option to pay via a credit card, charge card, or debit card, and
ii. a digital cash payment option to pay via a digital cash account that is loaded by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network;…and
a multipay subsystem to:
receive a request from the customer to pay a first partial payment amount via the card payment option that is less than the total amount, authorize the first partial payment amount with a card issuer of the card payment option, receive a request from the customer to pay a second partial payment amount via the digital cash payment option,…
1…a code generation subsystem to generate and provide an identification code to facilitate loading cash into the digital cash account by delivering the cash to the cash-accepting load network, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the customer for loading into the digital cash account of the customer;
1…wherein the sum of the first partial payment amount and the second partial payment amount is equal to the total amount owed to the payee; and in response to a determination that the digital cash account has sufficient funds for the second partial payment: capture the first partial payment amount via the card payment option to complete the card payment for deposit into an account of the payee, and transfer the second partial payment amount from the digital cash account to the account of the payee.
1. A system, comprising: a computer processor;
a memory in communication with the computer processor; a communication network in communication with the computer processor;
a data storage communicatively connected to the computer processor;
a ledger management subsystem to maintain a ledger of account balances of each of a plurality of ledger accounts within the data storage;
a communication subsystem to manage digital communications between a customer and a payee via the communication network, wherein the communication subsystem is configured to transmit a request for the customer to make a payment for a total amount to the payee;
a payment subsystem to present multiple payment options to the customer, via a rendered graphical user interface on an electronic display of a portable electronic device, the graphical user interface facilitating payment by the customer to pay the total amount to the payee, wherein the payment options include at least:
i. a card payment option to pay via a credit card, charge card, or debit card, and
ii. a digital cash payment option to pay via a digital cash account that is loaded by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network; and
a multipay subsystem to: receive a request from the customer to pay a first partial payment amount via the card payment option that is less than the total amount,
1…a code generation subsystem to generate and provide an identification code to be displayed on the portable electronic device to facilitate loading cash into the digital cash account by delivering the cash to the cash-accepting load network, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the customer for loading into the digital cash account of the customer; and
authorize the first partial payment amount with a card issuer of the card payment option, receive a request from the customer to pay a second partial payment amount via the digital cash payment option, wherein the sum of the first partial payment amount and the second partial payment amount is equal to the total amount owed to the payee; in response to a determination that the digital cash account has sufficient funds for the second partial payment: capture the first partial payment amount via the card payment option to complete the card payment for deposit into an account of the payee, and transfer the second partial payment amount from the digital cash account to the account of the payee; and in response to a determination that the digital cash account does not have sufficient funds for the second partial payment: do not capture the first partial payment amount via the card payment option, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment of the total amount owed, and generate a message to the customer that no payment will be made to the payee until cash is loaded into the digital cash account using the code generation subsystem.
2.The system of claim 1, wherein the payor is a customer, and wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, on the electronic display, a digital communication relating to a total payment amount to be made by the customer to the payee by a due date; receiving, via a customer input, a selection of a number of partial payments to be made into a locked account prior to the end of the due date; receiving, via a customer input, an amount for each partial payment, wherein the sum of the amounts of the partial payments is equal to or greater than the total payment amount; receiving, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receiving successive scheduled partial payments on corresponding scheduled payment dates, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account; in response to a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, transferring funds from the locked account to the payee; and in response to a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed on a corresponding scheduled payment date, canceling any remaining schedule partial payments and refund any partial payment in the locked account back to the customer, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment.
N/A
N/A
3.A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations to digitally engage a customer and facilitate payment processing via the electronic display, the operations comprising: display, on the electronic display, a digital communication relating to a total payment amount to be made by the customer to a payee by a due date; receive, via a customer input, a selection of a number of partial payments to be made into a locked account prior to the end of the due date; receive, via a customer input, an amount for each partial payment, wherein the sum of the amounts of the partial payments is equal to or greater than the total payment amount; receive, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receive successive scheduled partial payments on corresponding scheduled payment dates, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account; in response to a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, transfer funds from the locked account to the payee; and in response to a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed on a corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel any remaining schedule partial payments and refund any partial payment in the locked account back to the customer, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment.
N/A
N/A
4.The system of claim 3, wherein the digital communication comprises one of an SMS text message and an MMS text message.
N/A
N/A
5.The system of claim 3, wherein the digital communication comprises a message sent via a third-party messaging application for a portable electronic device.
N/A
N/A
6.The system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: authenticate the customer via authentication credentials provided by the customer.
N/A
N/A
7.The system of claim 6, wherein the authentication credentials comprise a personal identification number (PIN).
N/A
N/A
8.The system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: present, to the customer, at least two different payment options available for the customer for scheduling each partial payment.
N/A
N/A
9.The system of claim 8, wherein the at least two different payment options for scheduling each partial payment include any combination of: an option to pay via a credit card, an option to pay via a charge card, an option to pay via a debit card, an option to pay by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network, an option to pay via an automatic clearing house (ACH) transfer, an option to pay by wire transfer, and an option to pay via a peer-to-peer payment network.
N/A
N/A
10.A system, comprising: a computer processor; a memory in communication with the computer processor; a communication network in communication with the computer processor; a data storage communicatively connected to the computer processor; a ledger management subsystem to maintain a ledger of account balances of each of a plurality of ledger accounts within the data storage; a communication subsystem to transmit a request for a customer to make a payment for a total amount owed to the payee by a due date; a payment subsystem to present to the customer, via a rendered graphical user interface on a customer electronic device, an interface to schedule partial payments for payment on corresponding scheduled payment dates, including at least a first partial payment scheduled for a first scheduled payment date prior to the due date and a second partial payment scheduled for a second scheduled payment date, and wherein the sum of the partial payments is at least as great as the total amount owed; and a promise-to-pay subsystem to: determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed on its corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel all remaining scheduled partial payments, and notify the customer, via the communication subsystem, that the scheduled partial payment failed and that subsequently scheduled partial payments have been canceled.
N/A
N/A
11.The system of claim 10, wherein the promise-to-pay subsystem is further configured to refund any partial payment received prior to the determination that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed on its corresponding scheduled payment date.
N/A
N/A
12.The system of claim 10, wherein the second scheduled payment date of the second partial payment is prior to the due date, and wherein the scheduled partial payments include a third partial payment scheduled for a third schedule payment date that is after the second scheduled payment date and before or on the due date.
N/A
N/A
13.The system of claim 10, wherein the communication subsystem is configured to manage digital communications with the customer via at least one of: an SMS text message, an MMS text message, and a message sent via a third-party messaging platform.
N/A
N/A
14.The system of claim 10, further comprising an authentication subsystem to authenticate the customer.
N/A
N/A
15.The system of claim 10, further comprising a multipay subsystem to present to the customer at least two different payment options available for the customer for scheduling each partial payment.
N/A
N/A
16.The system of claim 15, wherein the at least two different payment options presented by the multipay subsystem for scheduling each partial payment include any combination of: an option to pay via a credit card, an option to pay via a charge card, an option to pay via a debit card, an option to pay by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network, an option to pay via an automatic clearing house (ACH) transfer, an option to pay by wire transfer, and an option to pay via a peer-to-peer payment network.
N/A
N/A
17.A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations to digitally engage a customer and facilitate payment processing via the electronic display, the operations comprising: display, on the electronic display, a digital communication relating to a total payment to be made by the customer to a payee by a due date; receive, via a customer input, a selection of a number of partial payments to be made prior to the end of the due date; receive, via a customer input, an amount for each partial payment, wherein the sum of the amounts of the partial payments is equal to or greater than the total payment; receive, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receive a first scheduled partial payment on a corresponding scheduled payment date; determine that a scheduled payment date associated with a second scheduled partial payment has passed without the customer completing the second scheduled partial payment; and cancel any remaining scheduled partial payments.
N/A
N/A
18.The system of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: refunding the received first scheduled partial payment to the customer such that no partial payment is received by payee.
N/A
N/A
19.The system of claim 17, wherein the digital communication comprises one of an SMS text message and an MMS text message.
N/A
N/A
20.The system of claim 17, wherein the digital communication comprises a message sent via a third-party messaging application for a portable electronic device.
N/A
N/A
21.The system of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: authenticate the customer via authentication credentials provided by the customer.
N/A
N/A
22.The system of claim 21, wherein the authentication credentials comprise a personal identification number (PIN).
N/A
N/A
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for making partial payments which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53
Claims 1-22 are directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54
For independent claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of: making partial payments. The steps of: A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: displaying, on the electronic display, a plurality of available payment options for a payor to make a payment owed to a payee; receiving, from the payor, a selection of at least two different payment options to pay the payee, wherein at least one of the selected payment options comprises a cash payment; providing an identification code to a portable electronic device for the payor to deposit the cash payment into a digital cash account, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the payor for loading into a digital cash account of the payor; completing the at least two different payment options when the sum of the at least two different payment options are verified and sum to the payment owed to the payee, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recites the abstract idea of making partial payments.
For independent claim 3, the claim recites an abstract idea of: making partial payments. The steps of: A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations to digitally engage a customer and facilitate payment processing via the electronic display, the operations comprising: display, on the electronic display, a digital communication relating to a total payment amount to be made by the customer to a payee by a due date; receive, via a customer input, a selection of a number of partial payments to be made into a locked account prior to the end of the due date; receive, via a customer input, an amount for each partial payment, wherein the sum of the amounts of the partial payments is equal to or greater than the total payment amount; receive, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receive successive scheduled partial payments on corresponding scheduled payment dates, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account; in response to a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, transfer funds from the locked account to the payee; and in response to a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed on a corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel any remaining schedule partial payments and refund any partial payment in the locked account back to the customer, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recites the abstract idea of making partial payments.
For independent claim 10, the claim recites an abstract idea of: making partial payments. The steps of: A system, comprising: a computer processor; a memory in communication with the computer processor; a communication network in communication with the computer processor; a data storage communicatively connected to the computer processor; a ledger management subsystem to maintain a ledger of account balances of each of a plurality of ledger accounts within the data storage; a communication subsystem to transmit a request for a customer to make a payment for a total amount owed to the payee by a due date; a payment subsystem to present to the customer, via a rendered graphical user interface on a customer electronic device, an interface to schedule partial payments for payment on corresponding scheduled payment dates, including at least a first partial payment scheduled for a first scheduled payment date prior to the due date and a second partial payment scheduled for a second scheduled payment date, and wherein the sum of the partial payments is at least as great as the total amount owed; and a promise-to-pay subsystem to: determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed on its corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel all remaining scheduled partial payments, and notify the customer, via the communication subsystem, that the scheduled partial payment failed and that subsequently scheduled partial payments have been canceled, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recites the abstract idea of making partial payments.
For independent claim 17, the claim recites an abstract idea of: making partial payments. The steps of: A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations to digitally engage a customer and facilitate payment processing via the electronic display, the operations comprising: display, on the electronic display, a digital communication relating to a total payment to be made by the customer to a payee by a due date; receive, via a customer input, a selection of a number of partial payments to be made prior to the end of the due date; receive, via a customer input, an amount for each partial payment, wherein the sum of the amounts of the partial payments is equal to or greater than the total payment; receive, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receive a first scheduled partial payment on a corresponding scheduled payment date; determine that a scheduled payment date associated with a second scheduled partial payment has passed without the customer completing the second scheduled partial payment; and cancel any remaining scheduled partial payments, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recites the abstract idea of making partial payments.
Independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 17, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations. For independent claim 1, the steps of: displaying a plurality of available payment options for a payor to make a payment owed to a payee; receiving a selection of at least two different payment options to pay the payee, wherein at least one of the selected payment options comprises a cash payment; providing an identification code for the payor to deposit the cash payment into a digital cash account, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the payor for loading into a digital cash account of the payor; completing the at least two different payment options when the sum of the at least two different payment options are verified and sum to the payment owed to the payee, considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations. Based on similar reasoning and rationale, the steps of Independent claims 3, 10, and 17 also recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Facilitating partial payments from the user to a customer is creating contractual agreements for participants in a business relationship and sales activities. Hence all the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination, fall under the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing 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. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display, and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions implemented by the processor; a portable electronic device; a system comprising a processor in communication with a memory, and a communication network; a ledger management subsystem, a communication subsystem, a payment subsystem, a rendered graphical user interface on a customer electronic device, an interface, and a promise-to-pay subsystem”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 recite similar limitations as independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 17; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. For instance, in claims 2 and _, the limitations of: wherein the payor is a customer, and wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, on the electronic display, a digital communication relating to a total payment amount to be made by the customer to the payee by a due date; receiving, via a customer input, a selection of a number of partial payments to be made into a locked account prior to the end of the due date; receiving, via a customer input, an amount for each partial payment, wherein the sum of the amounts of the partial payments is equal to or greater than the total payment amount; receiving, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receiving successive scheduled partial payments on corresponding scheduled payment dates, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account; in response to a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, transferring funds from the locked account to the payee; and in response to a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed on a corresponding scheduled payment date, canceling any remaining schedule partial payments and refund any partial payment in the locked account back to the customer, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, business relations, and sales activities, because the limitations further defines how the partial payments are made.
In claims 4-7, 13, 14, and 19-22, the limitations of: wherein the digital communication comprises one of an SMS text message and an MMS text message; wherein the digital communication comprises a message sent via a third-party messaging application for a portable electronic device; wherein the operations further comprise: authenticate the customer via authentication credentials provided by the customer; wherein the authentication credentials comprise a personal identification number (PIN); wherein the communication subsystem is configured to manage digital communications with the customer via at least one of: an SMS text message, an MMS text message, and a message sent via a third-party messaging platform; further comprising an authentication subsystem to authenticate the customer, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, business relations, and sales activities, because the limitations further describe the types of digital communication used and how the customer is authenticated.
In claims 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 the additional limitations of: wherein the operations further comprise: present, to the customer, at least two different payment options available for the customer for scheduling each partial payment; wherein the at least two different payment options for scheduling each partial payment include any combination of: an option to pay via a credit card, an option to pay via a charge card, an option to pay via a debit card, an option to pay by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network, an option to pay via an automatic clearing house (ACH) transfer, an option to pay by wire transfer, and an option to pay via a peer-to-peer payment network; wherein the second scheduled payment date of the second partial payment is prior to the due date, and wherein the scheduled partial payments include a third partial payment scheduled for a third schedule payment date that is after the second scheduled payment date and before or on the due date; further comprising a multipay subsystem to present to the customer at least two different payment options available for the customer for scheduling each partial payment; wherein the at least two different payment options presented by the multipay subsystem for scheduling each partial payment include any combination of: an option to pay via a credit card, an option to pay via a charge card, an option to pay via a debit card, an option to pay by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network, an option to pay via an automatic clearing house (ACH) transfer, an option to pay by wire transfer, and an option to pay via a peer-to-peer payment network , under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, business relations, and sales activities, because the claimed limitations further describe the various payment options available to the user.
In claims 11 and 18, the limitations of: wherein the promise-to-pay subsystem is further configured to refund any partial payment received prior to the determination that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed on its corresponding scheduled payment date; and wherein the operations further comprise: refunding the received first scheduled partial payment to the customer such that no partial payment is received by payee, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, business relations, and sales activities, because the limitations further describe subsequent actions for refunding payments when the total payment isn’t completed.
Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the system, the electronic display, an SMS text message, an MMS text message, a third-party messaging application for a portable electronic device, the promise-to-pay subsystem, communication subsystem, an authentication subsystem, and a multipay subsystem”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 17 only recite the additional elements of “A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display, and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions implemented by the processor; a portable electronic device; a system comprising a processor in communication with a memory, and a communication network; a ledger management subsystem, a communication subsystem, a payment subsystem, a rendered graphical user interface on a customer electronic device, an interface, and a promise-to-pay subsystem”. A plain reading of Figures 1-8, and associated descriptions in the specification in at least: para. 0012 of the specification stating “fig. 7 illustrates a computing system to digitally engage a customer and facilitate payment processing”, para. 0055 of the specification stating “the systems, methods, and platforms described herein may be at least partially embodied as an application, such as a mobile app, on a portable electronic device, such as a cellular phone, laptop, wearable electronic or laptop device…the application may cause a GUI to be displayed on an electronic device of the portable electronic device through which the customer may interact”, para. 0059 of the specification stating “some of the infrastructure that can be used with embodiments disclosed herein is already available, such as general-purpose computers…and communication networks…a computer may include a processor, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, logic circuitry or the like,…the computer may include a computer-readable storage device”, paras. 0060-0061 of the specification stating: embodiments may be described herein may be implemented as software modules or components…a software module may include any type of computer instruction or computer-executable code located within or on a computer-readable storage medium, para. 0063 of the specification stating “the GUI for a payment processing platform…may be displayed on a mobile computing device”, paras. 0082-0084 stating “computing system 700…may include a bus 716 that connects a processor 718, memory 720, a network interface 722 and computer readable storage medium 702…such as…a computer readable storage medium, may include various hardware, software, and/or hardware/software combination modules or subsystems illustrated as modules 704, 706, 708, 710, 730, 735, and 737…ledger management module 704…, communications management module 708…, authentication module 710…, payment module 730…, code generation module 706…”, para. 0086-0087 of the specification stating “payment module 730 may include a multipay module 735 and a partial payment management module 737”, reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements of “A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display, and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions implemented by the processor; a portable electronic device; a system comprising a processor in communication with a memory, and a communication network; a ledger management subsystem, a communication subsystem, a payment subsystem, a rendered graphical user interface on a customer electronic device, an interface, and a promise-to-pay subsystem” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22, recite similar generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the system, the electronic display, an SMS text message, an MMS text message, a third-party messaging application for a portable electronic device, the promise-to-pay subsystem, communication subsystem, an authentication subsystem, and a multipay subsystem”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56
Independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 17 do 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 “A system, comprising: a processor; an electronic display, and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions implemented by the processor; a portable electronic device; a system comprising a processor in communication with a memory, and a communication network; a ledger management subsystem, a communication subsystem, a payment subsystem, a rendered graphical user interface on a customer electronic device, an interface, and a promise-to-pay subsystem” to perform the steps of independent claim 1 for: displaying a plurality of available payment options for a payor to make a payment owed to a payee; receiving a selection of at least two different payment options to pay the payee, wherein at least one of the selected payment options comprises a cash payment; providing an identification code for the payor to deposit the cash payment into a digital cash account, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the payor for loading into a digital cash account of the payor; completing the at least two different payment options when the sum of the at least two different payment options are verified and sum to the payment owed to the payee, and based on similar reasoning and rationale for the steps of independent claim 3, 10, and 17, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)); are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recite: “receiving…a selection of at least two different payment options to pay the payee, providing an identification code to…, receive…a selection of a number of partial payments…, receive…an amount for each partial payment, receive…a scheduled payment date for each partial payment, receive successive scheduled partial payments on scheduled payment dates, transmit a request for a customer to make a payment…, notify the customer…that the scheduled partial payment failed and…, digitally engage a customer and facilitate payment processing…, receive…a selection of a number of partial payments…, receive…an amount for each partial payment, receive…a scheduled payment date for each partial payment, and receive a first scheduled partial payment…”. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that performing repetitive calculations (see Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values), and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”)) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, similar to the claimed limitations of the independent claims for: “completing the at least two different payments options when…, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account…, in response to a determination…transfer funds…, in response to a determination…cancel any remaining schedule partial payments and refund…, determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed…, cancel all remaining scheduled partial payments, determine that a scheduled payment date…has passed…, and cancel any remaining scheduled payments ” MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that electronic recordkeeping (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)), and storing and retrieving information in memory (see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, similar to the claimed limitations of the independent claims for: “maintain a ledger of account balances…”. Furthermore, the steps for “displaying…a plurality of available payment options, display…a digital communication relating to a total payment amount…, present to the customer…an interface to schedule partial payments…, and display…a digital communication relating to a total payment” are merely presenting results of an analysis akin to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 17 are not patent eligible.
In addition, the dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 do 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 dependent claims of: “the system, the electronic display, an SMS text message, an MMS text message, a third-party messaging application for a portable electronic device, the promise-to-pay subsystem, communication subsystem, an authentication subsystem, and a multipay subsystem” to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2-7 recite limitations for: “records claim amount transfer completion…, records invalidation information…, records division application information…, records division approval information…, records information…”, which are electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory that are well understood and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106(d)(ll)). Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 also recite limitations for: “receiving…a selection of a number of partial payments…, receiving…an amount for each partial payment, receiving…a scheduled payment date for each partial payment, receiving successive scheduled partial payments…, cancelling any remaining schedule partial payments…, and present…at least two different payment options available for the customer…”, which are well understood and conventional functions for receiving or transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106(d)(ll)). Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 also recite limitations for: “a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed…, authenticate a customer…, refund any partial payment, ...refunding…, and transferring funds… ”, which are akin to performing repetitive calculation which are well understood and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106(d)(ll)). For these reasons, dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 also are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0179558 to Fischer (hereinafter referred to as Fischer), in view of US 2012/0136780 to El-Awady et al. (hereinafter referred to as El-Awady).
In regards to claim 1, Fischer discloses a system (system for enabling a broader array of financial account management, payment options, and security options, para. 0008, Fig. 1B), comprising: a processor (inspire pay server 105, fig. 8); an electronic display (customer’s mobile phone 801 is in communication 803a with the InspirePay server 105 which provides the customer with account options for payment on the mobile phone screen, para. 0046, fig. 8); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (a bill payment computer readable non-transitory medium storing processor issuable and generated instructions, para. 0380) that, when implemented by the processor (CPU executes program code stored instructions, para. 0195), cause the processor to perform operations comprising: displaying, on the electronic display, a plurality of available payment options for a payor to make a payment owed to a payee (customer’s mobile phone 801 is in communication 803a with the InspirePay server 105 which provides the customer with account options for payment on the mobile phone screen, para. 0046, fig. 8); receiving, from the payor (payments using mobile and using mobile payment platforms can transmit payments using a multiplicity of financial accounts processed via an online server or transmitted using wireless or near field communication capabilities, para. 0015), a selection of at least two different payment options (invention enables customer payment options using accounts such as credit card accounts, ACH/checking accounts, online bank accounts, merchant accounts, bank account information for Wire Transfers, Gift Card/Loyalty Card systems, or any other type of financial account for performing transactions involving multiple financial accounts, paras. 0008-0015, figs. 2-10) to pay the payee (customer may select to pay a $75 fee using $25 off Credit Card A and $50 off of Bank account A, paras. 0045-0048, figs. 7-10; single transaction may be completed using multiple financial accounts including permitting $250 to be charged to a checking account, $100 to be charged to a VISA card and $150 to be charged to a Mastercard, para. 0013, figs. 7-10), wherein at least one of the selected payment options comprises a cash payment (invention enables customer payment options using accounts such as credit card accounts, ACH/checking accounts, online bank accounts, merchant accounts, bank account information for Wire Transfers, Gift Card/Loyalty Card systems, or any other type of financial account for performing transactions involving multiple financial accounts, paras. 0008-0015, figs. 2-10); completing the at least two different payment options when the sum of the at least two different payment options are verified (payment platform identifies how much credit or balance is available across each account as well as which payment methods on file may interact with the specific merchant in question, para. 0012) and sum to the payment owed to the payee (once a player approves a given transaction, the funds are immediately transferred to the merchant bank 806 and appropriate mobile notification is provided on the mobile device paras. 0013, 0045-0047 figs. 7-10). However, Fischer fails to disclose providing an identification code to a portable electronic device for the payor to deposit the cash payment into a digital cash account, wherein the identification code is used to identify cash provided by the payor for loading into a digital cash account of the payor.
El-Awady, in the related field of electronic payment platforms, teaches providing an identification code to a portable electronic device for the payor to deposit the cash payment (user 102 may pay cash 103c at an access agency 101a-101c to complete the bill payment, para. 0023-0027, figs. 1A-1F) into a digital cash account (when a customer needs to load a prepaid card, the user may provide payment of a tendered amount at the participating merchant in a variety of forms including cash, paper checks, bank notes, credit card, debit card, and the like, para. 0077), wherein the identification code (user may receive an electronic bill via email or an online e-bill platform and the bring the received bill to a Bill-Pay access agency 101a-101c and enter barcode/key 103d for payment, paras. 0023-0027, Figs. 1A-1F) is used to identify cash provided by the payor (for example a convenience store POS terminal may scan the barcode to read the invoice 106b and enter the amount due to process the payment, paras. 0023-0027, Figs. 1A-1F) for loading (when a customer needs to load a prepaid card, the user may provide payment of a tendered amount at the participating merchant in a variety of forms including cash, paper checks, bank notes, credit card, debit card, and the like, para. 0077; user engages mobile device 103a to conduct the payment and provides bill payment information such as barcode information 105d to the Bill-Pay access agency 101a-101c, paras. 0023-0027, Figs. 1A-1F)) into a digital cash account of the payor (user 102 interacts with access agency 101 to pay bills by following instructions for bill payment at the kiosk or point of service terminal at the access agency 101, paras. 0047 and 0080; for example a convenience store POS terminal may scan the barcode to read the invoice 106b and enter the amount due to process the payment, paras. 0023-0027, Figs. 1A-1F). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fischer with the ability for a user to pay a bill by delivering cash to a cash-accepting load network as taught by the system of Al-Awady. The motivation for doing so would have been to include software solutions, hardware solutions, and/or some combination of both hardware/software depending on the particular implementation (Al-Awady, paras. 0197).
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of dependent claim 2 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103. The closest prior art of record is US 2012/0179558 to Fischer (hereinafter referred to as Fischer), US 2012/0136780 to El-Awady et al. (hereinafter referred to as El-Awady), US 2007/0055623 to Ha et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ha), US 2018/0322485 to Jayaram et al. (hereinafter referred to as Jayaram), US 2019/0172059 to Castagna et al. (hereinafter referred to as Castagna), and US 2017/0004501 to Ledfored et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ledfored). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in dependent claim 2. For dependent claim 2, the prior art of Fischer, El-Awady, Ha, Jayaram, Castagna, and Ledfored specifically do not disclose: “receiving, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receiving successive scheduled partial payments on corresponding scheduled payment dates, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account; in response to a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, transferring funds from the locked account to the payee; and in response to a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed on a corresponding scheduled payment date, canceling any remaining schedule partial payments and refund any partial payment in the locked account back to the customer, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment”.
Claims 3-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent claim 3 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 2012/0179558 to Fischer (hereinafter referred to as Fischer), US 2012/0136780 to El-Awady et al. (hereinafter referred to as El-Awady), US 2007/0055623 to Ha et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ha), US 2018/0322485 to Jayaram et al. (hereinafter referred to as Jayaram), US 2019/0172059 to Castagna et al. (hereinafter referred to as Castagna), and US 2017/0004501 to Ledfored et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ledfored). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claim 3. For independent claim 3, the prior art of Fischer, El-Awady, Ha, Jayaram, Castagna, and Ledfored specifically do not disclose: “receive, via a customer input, a scheduled payment date for each partial payment; receive successive scheduled partial payments on corresponding scheduled payment dates, wherein each received scheduled partial payment is deposited into the locked account; in response to a determination that a final scheduled partial payment has been received prior to the due date, transfer funds from the locked account to the payee; and in response to a determination that at least one scheduled partial payment has not been completed on a corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel any remaining schedule partial payments and refund any partial payment in the locked account back to the customer, such that the payee does not receive any partial payment”. Dependent claims 4-9 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Claims 10-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent claim 10 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 2012/0179558 to Fischer (hereinafter referred to as Fischer), US 2012/0136780 to El-Awady et al. (hereinafter referred to as El-Awady), US 2007/0055623 to Ha et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ha), US 2018/0322485 to Jayaram et al. (hereinafter referred to as Jayaram), US 2019/0172059 to Castagna et al. (hereinafter referred to as Castagna), and US 2017/0004501 to Ledfored et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ledfored). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claim 10. For independent claim 10, the prior art of Fischer, El-Awady, Ha, Jayaram, Castagna, and Ledfored specifically do not disclose: “schedule partial payments for payment on corresponding scheduled payment dates, including at least a first partial payment scheduled for a first scheduled payment date prior to the due date and a second partial payment scheduled for a second scheduled payment date, and wherein the sum of the partial payments is at least as great as the total amount owed; and a promise-to-pay subsystem to: determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed on its corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel all remaining scheduled partial payments, and notify the customer, via the communication subsystem, that the scheduled partial payment failed and that subsequently scheduled partial payments have been canceled”. Dependent claims 11-16 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Claims 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent claim 17 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 2012/0179558 to Fischer (hereinafter referred to as Fischer), US 2012/0136780 to El-Awady et al. (hereinafter referred to as El-Awady), US 2007/0055623 to Ha et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ha), US 2018/0322485 to Jayaram et al. (hereinafter referred to as Jayaram), US 2019/0172059 to Castagna et al. (hereinafter referred to as Castagna), and US 2017/0004501 to Ledfored et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ledfored). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claim. For independent claim 10, the prior art of Fischer, El-Awady, Ha, Jayaram, Castagna, and Ledfored specifically do not disclose: “schedule partial payments for payment on corresponding scheduled payment dates, including at least a first partial payment scheduled for a first scheduled payment date prior to the due date and a second partial payment scheduled for a second scheduled payment date, and wherein the sum of the partial payments is at least as great as the total amount owed; and a promise-to-pay subsystem to: determine that one of the scheduled partial payments was not completed on its corresponding scheduled payment date, cancel all remaining scheduled partial payments, and notify the customer, via the communication subsystem, that the scheduled partial payment failed and that subsequently scheduled partial payments have been canceled”. Dependent claims 11-16 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 1/7/2026