DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1–20 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.
In sum, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 8–20), and a machine (claims 1-7), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of receiving a transfer request in order to transfer funds from one account to another by:
receiving a first request to generate a first transfer, wherein the first request comprises a source account, a first destination account, and a first transfer amount;
generating a first transfer identifier for the first transfer;
providing an indication of the first transfer identifier;
receiving a second request to generate a second transfer, wherein the second request comprises the first transfer identifier, a second destination account, and a second transfer amount; and
generating, based on the first transfer identifier, a transfer group comprising the first transfer and the second transfer, wherein a source account for the second transfer is the first destination account of the first transfer.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving a transfer request in order to transfer funds from one account to another).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor,” and “memory” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0085-0086] of the specification). Independent claim 14 is nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to this claim as well. However, independent claim 8 contains several different limitations to the other claims. It focuses on processing a second transfer based on a first state machine determining that it has reached a terminal state. This is a specific condition tied to a transfer taking place.
Dependent claims 2–7, 9-13, and 15–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 15 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe initiating a second transfer based on the first transfer being completed. Dependent claims 3 and 16 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe how a first state machine is initiated and then initiating a second transfer. Dependent claims 4 and 17 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe that the second transfer is queued in response to receiving the second request. Dependent claims 5 and 18 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe that the second state machine is updated. Dependent claims 6 and 19 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe determining that the first transfer has completed and then initiating the second transfer. Dependent claims 7 and 20 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe generating a third transfer. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes initiating a second transfer and updating a second state machine based on this. Dependent claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes cancelling the second transfer and updating a second state machine associated with this. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the first transfer has reached a terminal state. Dependent claim 12 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that a source account of the second transfer is a destination account of the first transfer. Dependent claim 13 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes identifying a third transfer and processing the third transfer.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 6, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Continanza et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0127209) (hereinafter “Continanza”).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Continanza discloses receiving a first request to generate a first transfer, wherein the first request comprises a source account, a first destination account, and a first transfer amount. Continanza states that “In one embodiment, the method which is performed by a payment system having at least a processor and a memory therein to execute instructions, comprises creating a merchant platform account at the payment system, creating a single charge from a customer at the merchant platform account, creating multiple transfers from the merchant platform to different connected accounts where the multiple transfers are each to transfer a sub-portion of proceeds associated with the single charge from the customer to each of the different connected accounts, performing the single charge from the customer, and performing each of the multiple transfers from the merchant platform to the different connected accounts.” (See paragraph [0011]). Continanza discloses generating a first transfer identifier for the first transfer and providing an indication of the first transfer identifier. Continanza states that “In order to add the single-use token to the information submitted to the merchant's server, in one embodiment, a new input tag is added into the payment form, and its value is set to the identifier (ID) of the single-use token.” (See paragraph [0141]). Continanza discloses receiving a second request to generate a second transfer, wherein the second request comprises the first transfer identifier, a second destination account, and a second transfer amount and generating, based on the first transfer identifier, a transfer group comprising the first transfer and the second transfer, wherein a source account for the second transfer is the first destination account of the first transfer. Continanza states that “In one embodiment, the method which is performed by a payment system having at least a processor and a memory therein to execute instructions, comprises creating a merchant platform account at the payment system, creating a single charge from a customer at the merchant platform account, creating multiple transfers from the merchant platform to different connected accounts where the multiple transfers are each to transfer a sub-portion of proceeds associated with the single charge from the customer to each of the different connected accounts, performing the single charge from the customer, and performing each of the multiple transfers from the merchant platform to the different connected accounts.” (See paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Continanza discloses determining that the first transfer has completed successfully; and in response to determining that the first transfer has completed successfully, initiating the second transfer. Continanza states that “In one embodiment, the method which is performed by a payment system having at least a processor and a memory therein to execute instructions, comprises creating a merchant platform account at the payment system, creating a single charge from a customer at the merchant platform account, creating multiple transfers from the merchant platform to different connected accounts where the multiple transfers are each to transfer a sub-portion of proceeds associated with the single charge from the customer to each of the different connected accounts, performing the single charge from the customer, and performing each of the multiple transfers from the merchant platform to the different connected accounts.” (See paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Continanza discloses a first state machine is initiated as a result of the first request to generate the first transfer to indicate the first transfer is pending and it is determined that the first transfer has completed successfully based on an update to the first state machine, thereby initiating the second transfer. Continanza states that “According to such embodiments, the transfer 411 takes on the pending status of the associated charge such that, if the funds from the charge become available in N days, the payment that the destination account receives from the transfer also becomes available in N days. The commerce system may itself, according to certain embodiments, create a ‘transfer_group’ parameter and value for the platform, although such a parameter need not be specified in accordance with other embodiments.” (See paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Continanza discloses determining that the first transfer has completed successfully and in response to determining that the first transfer has completed successfully, initiating the second transfer. Continanza states that “In one embodiment, the method which is performed by a payment system having at least a processor and a memory therein to execute instructions, comprises creating a merchant platform account at the payment system, creating a single charge from a customer at the merchant platform account, creating multiple transfers from the merchant platform to different connected accounts where the multiple transfers are each to transfer a sub-portion of proceeds associated with the single charge from the customer to each of the different connected accounts, performing the single charge from the customer, and performing each of the multiple transfers from the merchant platform to the different connected accounts.” (See paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. 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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696