DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
The examiner notes that there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention. This is because the claims contain very specific steps and procedures in the business idea of verifying user/user’s-data by sending mobile numbers and names for recipient’s account identifier and alerting recipient. At a high level, the invention is about transferring fund by verifying mobile numbers and names.
More specifically, the steps includes using mobile numbers, names, and recipient’s account identifier in the verification process, followed by confirmation and notification steps. To accomplish this, the claims contain very specific steps and contents – as the claim stated:
“receiving, by a processing network computer from a first user device via a server computer, transfer data comprising a mobile number and a name of a receiver operating a second user device;
transmitting, by the processing network computer, a verification request message, wherein the verification request message comprises the mobile number and the name;
receiving, by the processing network computer, a verification response message, the verification response message comprising an account identifier of the receiver;
transmitting, by the processing network computer, a confirmation request message to the server computer;
receiving, by the processing network computer, a confirmation response from the server computer; and
transmitting, by the processing network computer, a transaction message comprising the account identifier,
wherein sending the transaction message causes an alert to be provided to the second user device (emphasis examiner’s).”
Thus, there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the combination of the elements in the claimed invention.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 are directed to a system or method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 8. Claim 1 recites the limitations of verifying user/user’s-data by sending mobile numbers and names for recipient’s account identifier and alerting recipient.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving “transfer data” (=mobile number + recipient’s name); transmitting “verification request message” (=mobile number + recipient’s name); receiving “verification response message” (=recipient’s account identifier); transmitting “confirmation request message”; receiving “confirmation response”; transmitting “transaction message” (=account identifier); and sending the “transaction message” causes an alert to be provided to 2nd user device, – specifically, the claim recites
“receiving… transfer data comprising a mobile number and a name of a receiver operating a second user device; transmitting… a verification request message, wherein the verification request message comprises the mobile number and the name; receiving… a verification response message, the verification response message comprising an account identifier of the receiver; transmitting… a confirmation request message… receiving… a confirmation response… transmitting… a transaction message comprising the account identifier, wherein sending the transaction message causes an alert to be provided to the second user device”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a processing network computer”, “a processor”, “a computer readable medium”, “a first user device”, “a server computer”, “a receiver”, and “a second user device”, in claim 8, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a processing network computer, a processor, a first user device, a server computer, and a second user device; a communication device such as a receiver; and a storage unit such as a computer readable medium. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 8 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of wherein the verification request message is sent to a wallet aggregator computer, and wherein the verification response message is received from the wallet aggregator computer, wherein the wallet aggregator computer is located in a first country and the processing network computer corresponds to a second country, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a wallet aggregator computer” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of receiving, by the processing network computer, an additional account identifier associated with a sender; transmitting, by the processing network computer to an authorizing entity computer associated with the sender, an automatic funds transfer (AFT) message; and receiving, by the processing network computer from the authorizing entity computer, a response indicating funds have been transferred from a first account associated with the additional account identifier to a second account associated with a service provider, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the processing network computer” and “an authorizing entity computer” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of wherein transmitting the transaction message occurs in response to receiving the response indicating the funds have been transferred, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of receiving, by the processing network computer, a registration message from one or more wallet aggregator computers, the one or more wallet aggregator computers comprising a wallet aggregator computer; and in response to receiving the registration message, storing registration information associated with the one or more wallet aggregator computers at a data store accessible to the processing network computer, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the processing network computer”, “a data store”, and “one or more wallet aggregator computers”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of identifying the wallet aggregator computer to which to transmit the verification request message, the wallet aggregator computer being identified from the one or more wallet aggregator computers based at least in part on the mobile number received in the verification request message and the registration information associated with the one or more wallet aggregator computers, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the wallet aggregator computer” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction message is an original credit transaction (OCT) message, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of transmit the verification request message to a plurality of wallet aggregator computers; and receive, from the plurality of wallet aggregator computers, a plurality of verification response messages, the plurality of verification response messages comprising the verification response message, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a plurality of wallet aggregator computers” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of wherein the alert is provided by a wallet aggregator computer of the plurality of wallet aggregator computers, the wallet aggregator computer being identified, by the processing network computer, based at least in part on at least one of: 1) the plurality of verification response messages received from the plurality of wallet aggregator computers, or 2) registration information that is stored by the processing network computer and associated with the plurality of wallet aggregator computers , which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a wallet aggregator computer” and “by the processing network computer” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of wherein the first user device is associated with a sender, and wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing network computer to: transmit, to an authorizing entity computer associated with the sender, an automatic funds transfer (AFT) message; and receive, from the authorizing entity computer, a response indicating that funds have been transferred from a first account associated with the sender to a second account associated with a service provider, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the first user device”, “, to an authorizing entity computer”, and “the processing network computer”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction message is initiated by the processing network computer based at least in part on receiving the response indicating that the funds have been transferred from the first account associated with the sender to the second account associated with the service provider, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processing network computer” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of receive a registration message from one or more wallet aggregator computers, the one or more wallet aggregator computers comprising the wallet aggregator computer; and in response to receiving the registration message, store registration information associated with the one or more wallet aggregator computers at a data store accessible to the processing network computer, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “one or more wallet aggregator computers”, “the processing network computer”, and “a data store”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of identify a wallet aggregator computer to which to transmit the verification request message, the wallet aggregator computer being identified from the one or more wallet aggregator computers based at least in part on the mobile number received in the verification request message and the registration information associated with the one or more wallet aggregator computers, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a wallet aggregator computer” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction message is an original credit transaction (OCT) message, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-15 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
McCown (20110145152) teaches methods for identity verification and funds transfer via a payment proxy system.
Mutahi (20160267444) teaches payments through virtualization of a physical point of sale (pos) terminal and money transfer using mobile device.
Jalil (20210027285) teaches system and method for managing fund transfers.
Black (20200013028) teaches peer-to-peer money transfers.
Jeong (11062321) teaches agency payment system, server and controlling method thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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 Anderson can be reached on 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights