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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/26/2026.
Claims 21-40 were canceled in the preliminary amendment filed on 01/21/2025.
Claims 8 and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 41 and 42 have been added.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20, 41-42 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 41-42 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are not persuasive. In page 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant asserted that “[amended] claim 1 integrates any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application and provides significantly more than any allegedly recited judicial exception, and thus the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two . . .”. However, the use of a P2P method via the digital payment network (DPN) to perform a generation of a loan contract does not improve the technical field of digital payment. It perhaps provides an improvement to the business solution of loan contract generation, but not the P2P technology. The Applicant further alleged that “this improves the accuracy and consistency of distributed user device interactions by reducing manual re-entry . . based on accurate feedback generated through the contract review interface . . .”. But , the use of technology to automate the entry task by pre-loading the information is definitely not an improvement to technology. Instead, the idea relies entirely on the existing P2P and automation platform to expedite information generation. Moreover, the additional elements such as “GUI engine”, “communications hardware”, and “interface”, etc., do not help to render the claim a practical application. In fact, Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B Prong Two, the same analysis is applied to determine whether the claim is “significantly more”. As the claim was not analyzed under well-understood, routine or conventional, there is not requirement to provide a supporting reference. However, since the claim leverages the use of existing technology, a better approach is to rely on the “apply it” analysis. And thus, Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. In page 16, the applicant asserted “Unnerstall does not disclose a digital extension request comprising ‘conditions of a requested digital . . .’. See amended claim 1” & “Unnerstall fails to disclose ‘ receiving . . . a digital extension requested’, as recited in amended claim 1. Furthermore, the Applicant canceled claim 8 and rolled up the elements into claim 1 and amended claim 1 accordingly.
Unnerstall teaches A data controller computing device is configured to receive, from a voice-controlled (VC) computing device, a shared payment initialization request identifying a primary user payment account associated with the VC computing device. The DC computing device creates a shared payment account linked in a database to the primary user payment account. The DC computing device also receives secondary user information, and links in the database at least one secondary user payment account to the shared payment account. Additionally, the DC computing device transmits a shared payment account identifier to the VC computing device. The DC computing device receives, via a payment network, a transaction authorization request including the shared payment account identifier, a merchant identifier, and a transaction amount. The DC computing device applies respective portions of the transaction amount against each of the primary user account and the at least one secondary user payment account.
Marcus teaches a method of and system for authorizing a transaction remotely is disclosed. A customer uses a computer to browse for a product displayed on the internet. The customer may enter a unique number into the computer. The unique number is authorized and an authorization code is sent to the customer's communication device. The customer enters the authorization code into the computer to complete the transaction.
Shvarts teaches Techniques for providing a financial services platform that can facilitate providing financial services to communication devices associated with users are presented. The financial services platform provides an interface that can incorporate base financial services and can allow a communication device user to turn on or off various add-on financial service functions. Financial service providers or third-party developers can develop, and provide to communication devices of users, financial services via a unified, standardized system provided by the financial services platform, and can create financial services by combining financial service modules associated with the financial services platform. The financial services platform provides financial services for identity management by communication devices users, credit exchange services to make pre-approved financial offers to users, and electronically signing of financial documents to create legally binding contracts with regard to pre-approved financial offers.
None of the cited references, in combination or individually, disclose the amended independent claims. The cited references fail to establish a prima facie case for obviousness type rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-7, 9-17, 1-20, 41-42 are directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 1-20, 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are grouped together. Claim 11, for instance, recites, An apparatus comprising: communications hardware configured to receive, via a digital payment network (DPN), a digital extension request comprising a primary DPN user identifier of a primary user and at least one secondary DPN user identifier of at least one secondary user; a contract management engine configured to: generate a digital contract based on the digital extension request, and determine that criteria associated with the digital contract is satisfied; and payment transfer circuitry configure to facilitate, in response to determining that the criteria is satisfied, a digital payment between the primary user and the at least one secondary user over the DPN. These limitations are directed to generate a loan or payment service via P2P– business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements an apparatus, a communication hardware, a digital payment network (DPN), a primary DPN, a contract management engine, a digital contract recited at a high-level of generality (present, display, and receive) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to compose a risk profile and purchase insurance based on such risk for a property is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2, 12 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite requesting a loan and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining a criteria and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 4 and 14 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining that the criteria associated with the digital contract and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 5, 15 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite indicating a service agreement and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 6, 13, 16 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite causing presentation of contract generation and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 7 and 17 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining an extension reliability factor and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 9 and 19 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite causing presentation one or more modified conditions and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 10 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite generating a response of acceptance and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 41 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite instantaneous transfer of funds and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 42 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite presenting mobile banking application elements and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an apparatus) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20, 41-42 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights