DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Second Continuation application with a claim of priority to a parent Application filed September 30,2020.
No IDS was filed in this Application.
NOTE: Interviews are encouraged, especially in this case given this is a second continuation and two issued patents based on the parent application have been previously issued. Please use the AIR form, the link for which is found at the end of this Action, for scheduling an interview if such is desired.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined as follows:
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because they use various different terms to – apparently – refer to the same entity. For example, Claim 1 uses the terminology “user,” “payer,” “entity,” and “payee.” Such varied usage is confusing.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A. Rejection Based on Abstract Idea
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, this rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
B. Statutory Categories
Independent Claim 1 is a system claim which recites various computer hardware components such as a server and an interface and it therefore falls into the statutory category of “machine/manufacture.” Claim 10 is a method claim and therefore falls into the statutory category of a “process.” Claim 16 is non-transitory CRM Claim and therefore falls into the category of “machine/manufacture.”
C. The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 is illustrative of the rejection of all claims on the grounds of abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
“provide, for display within a graphical user interface corresponding to an application of the consumer banking service and within the payer computing device, an electronic payment transaction option comprising a receiving-account-agnostic option to transmit a monetary value from the first financial account to an entity through contact information of the entity.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a method of organizing human activity, specifically, fundamental economic principles or practices. That is, analyzing this limitation in the context of the claim as a whole, it recites a process that falls within the grouping of abstract ideas comprising certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamental economic principles or practices are examples of such methods. In this case, the fundamental economic principle or practice is the common practice of providing a display on an interface of a payer computing device to facilitate payment to a peer such as a payee. This practice occurs millions of times every day.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a “processor” or “server” or “computing device” or “interface” does not remove the claim from the category of common or abstract methods of organizing human activity. These terms are recited at such a high level of generality as to not alter the designation of reciting an abstract idea.
Thus, Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, namely, an abstract idea.
D. The Claim Does Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Moreover, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The possible “additional limitations” recited in the Claim that must be considered are as follows:
A transaction management system for managing direct payer to payee transactions,
a server having an electronic communications interface capable of receiving data from a payer computing device and a payee computing device via a digital communications network,
wherein the server is associated with and is in electronic communication with a trusted consumer banking service computing device associated with a consumer banking service where a user associated with the payer computing device holds a first financial account
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system
in response to receiving the contact information of the entity and the monetary value from a user interaction with the receiving-account-agnostic option, generate a unique fund transfer hyperlink associated with an electronic payment transaction of the monetary value
generating a link to navigate to an account-agnostic payment acceptance interface to configure a destination for the transmittal of the monetary value;
transmitting the monetary value from the first financial account to a holding account of the consumer banking service and associating the monetary value to the unique fund transfer hyperlink;
configuring one or more access options for the link;
transmit an electronic communication comprising the unique fund transfer hyperlink to the payee computing device based on the contact information to cause the payee computing device to, upon an additional user interaction with the unique fund transfer hyperlink, display the account-agnostic payment acceptance interface within an account-agnostic application native to the payee computing device
to receive payment destination information for the destination for the transmittal of the monetary value regardless of a payee account with the consumer banking service or regardless of access to a dedicated application associated with the consumer banking service;
based on receiving payment destination information from the payee computing device through the account-agnostic payment acceptance interface, transmit the monetary value from the holding account of the consumer banking service to a destination account corresponding to the entity on a destination consumer banking service network corresponding to the payment destination information.
1. Lack of Computer Components and Interaction Among Same
No additional computerized components are mentioned in these limitations. The only computer terms are recited only at a high level of generality. No other particular computer functions or computer component interactions within this system are recited. The few computer-related limitations are wholly generic in nature and are recited at such a high level of generality as to not provide any meaningful limitations on the claim.
The Claim merely recites at a high level the transfer of funds from a payer account to an account designated by a payee. Generating an interface, as noted above, for the entry of payee information and value or amount information is an extremely common form of peer to peer (P2P) payment schemes. These are high level, broad and abstract concepts. Furthermore, the claim lacks concrete assignments of specific functions among these various components. One example of such concrete assignment is to assign, in the claim, certain functions to specific components and recite them as interacting in specific ways. This is not the case with this Claim.
2. No Technical Solution to a Technical Problem
Analyzing these additional limitations individually, and taking the claim as a whole and as an ordered combination, it is clear that these additional limitations do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. They do not improve the functioning of the computer system itself or represent an improvement to any technology or technical field. In fact, there are very few computerized system components or functions recited.
Thus, these limitations fail to recite with specificity any technical function or any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, the claim lacks the specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only an outcome or a result – making a payment to a peer - to one claiming a specific way of achieving that outcome or result. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(I); 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a)
3. The Claim Recites Mere Instructions to Apply the Abstract Idea
The recitation of these generic components amounts to no more than mere instructions “to apply” the abstract idea exception using generic computer components. It is clear that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Furthermore, the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As noted above, the only possible computer components are recited at a high level of generality. This means that the abstract idea can be applied to an extremely general field of devices and systems. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor does not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the abstract idea exception, or claims every mode of accomplishing that idea, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f)
Accordingly, the additional elements or limitations listed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. That is, the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) have been evaluated to determine whether those additional elements, considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. They do not.
E. Step 2B: The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
This step involves the search for an “inventive concept.” However, it is clear from the case law and the MPEP that the considerations at issue are the same as those considered above with respect to the analysis of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) – (c) and (e). In other words, these analyses sharply overlap.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, the identified additional limitations do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible under §101. The other independent claims are, likewise, ineligible for the same reasons as they are virtually identical to Claim 29.
F. The Dependent Claims Do Not Recite Meaningful Additional Limitations
Similarly, Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1 by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1. Like Claim 1, this claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 merely recites the abstract concept of a time limit.
Claim 3 merely recites the abstract concept of visit count limit on the link.
Claim 4 merely recites the abstract concept of associating the link with an account.
Claim 5 merely recites the abstract concept of a destination or second account.
Claim 6 merely recites the abstract concept of a text with a hyperlink and an identifier.
Claim 7 merely recites the abstract concept of sending a message and generating a GUI.
Claim 8 merely recites the abstract concept of automatically transmitting the link and the payment.
Claim 9 merely recites the abstract concept of a broadcast communication.
Claims 10 - 20 are virtually identical or analogous variations to various of the aforementioned claims and are ineligible for the same reasons as set forth above.
None of these claims provide any additional meaningful limitations, non-generic computer components, or specific assignments of functionality among those components. Likewise, if at all, these claims recite only generic, computer-related limitations which are recited at such a high level of generality as to be devoid of any meaningful Limitations. These limitations do not recite improvements in the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, constitute only a mere instruction to “apply” the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1 - 20 constitute ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0148252 to Fleishman et al. (hereinafter “Fleishman”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,751,379 to Bueche et al. (hereinafter “Bueche”).
The Fleishman reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention – P2P monetary transfers by way of a message (e.g. text or email) and without requiring registration or enrollment with the payer’s platform.
The title is: Online payment transfer and identity management system and method
Fleishman teaches as follows in the Abstract:
“A person-to-person (P2P) payment platform and identity management system which facilitates online banking by allowing consumers to send and receive money in real-time, with no special registration outside of the users' existing banking relationship, and under the security, brand and control of their own respective banks. A central clearing facility (CCF) coordinates and manages payments for users through partner financial institutions. Customers initiate payments within their online banking accounts or other bank delivery channels, without setting up separate accounts profiles and passwords. The CCF is invisible, and allows the customer to access the bank's delivery channel; select a recipient from a list of past payees or enter a new recipient; specify a payment amount, an expiry date and the account from which to draw the funds, and optionally write a personalized message; receive immediate confirmation of the transaction, following which an email message is sent to the recipient advising of payment with links to various methods of collection, and receive an email message confirmation when the recipient accepts the payment. The recipient establishes his identity by providing responses to one or more customer-defined challenge-response questions, the accuracy of which must be verified before any financial transaction will be effected..” (Emphasis Added)
The purpose of Fleishman is on point with the claimed invention - to allow person to person payments via normal and common channels of communication – such as email or text – and without requiring special registration, passwords, or enrollment.
Thus, the problem recognized by the claimed invention is the same as addressed in Fleishman:
“[0008] The present invention provides a person-to-person (P2P) payment platform and identity management system which facilitates online banking by allowing bank customers to send and receive money in real-time, with no special registration requirement outside of the customers' existing banking relationship, and under the security, brand and control of their own respective banks.” (Emphasis Added)
To be clear, when this passage teaches “outside of the customer’s existing banking relationship,” Fleishman is referring to having an online banking presence available with the payee’s bank. That is, it is not a sign up or registration or enrollment or requirement to have an “account” with the P2P platform; rather, merely having an online presence or capacity, which in turn may require a sign up process with the entity’s OWN bank. This is clear from the following:
“[0010] The CCF is invisible, and effectively operates under the bank's brand so the bank retains the entire customer goodwill and developed brand recognition. In addition, each payment, in particular those delivered by e-mail, prompts recipients who don't bank online to sign up for their bank's Internet-based services to deposit payments directly into their accounts, thus increasing the bank's goodwill and facilitating the cross-selling of financial services. The e-mail payment option is a high-demand functionality that provides recognizable customer value and replaces customer inconvenience with real-time transactions and convenience to create more positive customer experiences. In addition to being able to initiate and receive payments using online banking services accessible via the web, customers can also utilize automated teller machines (ATMs), wireless networks, telephone, and any other access means provided by the financial institution to its customers.” (Emphasis Added)
See also 0092 – 0094.
Moreover, the issue allegedly addressed by the claimed invention is also addressed – and solved in the same manner – by the teachings of the secondary reference to Bueche. It’s title is: Mobile money transfers. The abstract teaches as follows:
“Methods and systems are disclosed for conducting person-to-person money transfers over a handheld mobile device using any suitable text messaging service. In one implementation, the money transfer may involve a payer providing a payee's phone number and the amount to be transferred via a text message to the payer's financial institution or via the financial institution's Web site. The financial institution may then send a text message to the phone number of the payee that includes a payment ID, a hyperlink to the Web site of the payer's financial institution, and the payer's name. The payee may thereafter access the financial institution's Web site using the payment ID and enter his/her bank and account information. The financial institution may then transfer the specified amount from the payer's account to the payee's account and send a confirmation message to the payer that the transfer has been completed.” (Emphasis Added)
Bueche addresses the same problem as the claims as follows:
“Electronic brokerage services from the likes of PayPal™ and MobiPay™ have attempted to alleviate the above inconveniences, but these services suffer from other drawbacks. For example, PayPal™, MobiPay™, and the like typically require both the person initiating the payment and the person receiving the payment to be members or otherwise have accounts opened with the services (i.e., an account holder normally may not transfer funds to a non-account holder, and vice versa). In addition, these services typically charge either the person making the payment, the person receiving the payment, or both, a small (but not insignificant) transaction fee. Furthermore, these services typically result in the payment being processed through ACH (Automated Clearing House) or a similar network, which can delay the availability of funds for up to several days. Finally, the services themselves are not banks or other financial institutions—but merely brokers—and must therefore rely on actual banks or other financial institutions to complete the money transfers.” (Emphasis Added)
Bueche teaches the use of “hyperlinks” – transmitted via text or email - to allow the payor/payee to complete the P2P payment cycle:
“The disclosed embodiments are directed to methods and systems for conducting person-to-person money transfers. The embodiments allow person-to-person money transfer to be conducted over a handheld mobile device using any suitable text messaging service, such as SMS, e-mail, and the like. In one implementation, the money transfer may involve a payer providing a payee's phone number and the amount to be transferred via a text message to the payer's financial institution or via the financial institution's Web site. The financial institution may then send a text message to the phone number of the payee that includes a payment ID, a hyperlink to the Web site of the payer's financial institution, and the payer's name (i.e., to inform the payee of the identity of the payer). The payee may thereafter access the financial institution's Web site using the payment ID and enter his/her bank and account information. The financial institution may then transfer the specified amount from the payer's account to the payee's account and send a confirmation message to the payer that the transfer has been completed. Such an arrangement makes it possible to easily conduct direct person-to-person money transfers over a handheld mobile device.” (Emphasis Added)
Thus, the references clearly teach the features of the claims.
Fleishman, Fig. 3 illustrates the basic architecture of the P2P payment platform including the administration of payments and “user interfaces” – including email – as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
601
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fleishman illustrates the use of email to deliver the payment as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
613
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fleishman teaches that payments can be transmitted both ways – as a push from a payor to a payee or as a pull by a payee – such as, for example, when a vendor or merchant is seeking payment from a customer – from the payor. Thus, the arrows in Fig. 3 above are bi-directional; whereas, Fig. 9a above is a push from a payor to a payee.
The use of email and hyperlinks is discussed in more detail at Fleishman: 0094, and 0104-0105,
Thus, Fleishman and Bueche solve the problem addressed by the claimed invention in the exact manner.
Accordingly, with regard to Claim 1, as outlined above, Fleishman teaches:
Broadest reasonable interpretation:
The Claims of a patent application must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP §2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (e.g. the specification gives the term a special meaning). The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.
Here, no specialized meaning is detected from the specification; therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the Claim terms will be given, with the possible exception of the claim term: “account-agnostic.” The term “agnostic” is not found in the specification. Therefore, the term is interpreted to mean, based on the remainder of the specification and its plain and ordinary meaning, that the payment is not conditioned or dependent on having an “account” with the payment platform. (See at least 0016)
Discussion of Cited References:
1. A transaction management system for managing direct payer to payee transactions, the transaction management system comprising a server having an electronic communications interface capable of receiving data from a payer computing device and a payee computing device via a digital communications network, wherein the server is associated with and is in electronic communication with a trusted consumer banking service computing device associated with a consumer banking service where a user associated with the payer computing device holds a first financial account and further comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to: (See at least Fleishman: Fig. 3 reproduced above, wherein the CCF would clearly represent the transaction management system to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and wherein the FI’s – where payor and payee would hold accounts - represent “financial institutions” and each entity in the payment scheme – as represented in the figure - would have a computing device.)
provide, for display within a graphical user interface corresponding to an application of the consumer banking service and within the payer computing device, an electronic payment transaction option comprising a receiving-account-agnostic option to transmit a monetary value from the first financial account to an entity through contact information of the entity; (See at least Fig. 9a reproduced above, and the associated description at 0037)
in response to receiving the contact information of the entity and the monetary value from a user interaction with the receiving-account-agnostic option, generate a unique fund transfer hyperlink associated with an electronic payment transaction of the monetary value by: (See at least 0092 – 0094 and 0105. See also Fig. 7 as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
656
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
generating a link to navigate to an account-agnostic payment acceptance interface to configure a destination for the transmittal of the monetary value; : (See at least 0092 – 0093 and 0105. See also Fig. 7 above.)
transmitting the monetary value from the first financial account to a holding account of the consumer banking service and associating the monetary value to the unique fund transfer hyperlink; and (See at least 0094.)
configuring one or more access options for the link; (See at least 0092 – 0094 and Fig. 12 as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
502
607
media_image4.png
Greyscale
transmit an electronic communication comprising the unique fund transfer hyperlink to the payee computing device based on the contact information to cause the payee computing device to, upon an additional user interaction with the unique fund transfer hyperlink, display the account-agnostic payment acceptance interface within an account-agnostic application native to the payee computing device to receive payment destination information for the destination for the transmittal of the monetary value regardless of a payee account with the consumer banking service or regardless of access to a dedicated application associated with the consumer banking service; and (See at least Figs. reproduced above and especially Fig. 12)
based on receiving payment destination information from the payee computing device through the account-agnostic payment acceptance interface, transmit the monetary value from the holding account of the consumer banking service to a destination account corresponding to the entity on a destination consumer banking service network corresponding to the payment destination information. (See at least Fig. 3 above which represents the transmission of funds.)
Therefore, Fleishman appears to teach all of the essential limitations of Claim 1; however, out of an abundance of caution, Bueche is cited for its teachings related to an account-agnostic system for P2P payments. See the above description of this very relevant reference. Bueche also teaches the use of a holding account:
“In some embodiments, the funds that will be used to complete the money transfer are moved out of the payer's account only at the time the money transfer is to be conducted. In other embodiments, the funds are moved out of the payer's account and into a temporary holding account (e.g., a so-called “lock box”) as soon as he/she initiates the money transfer. The funds may then be used to earn interest for the financial institution until the time the money transfer is to be conducted, which may be several days depending on when the payee 108 actually accesses the receive-a-payment Web site 800 (see FIG. 8).” (Emphasis Added)
Thus, Bueche is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Fleishman and solves the alleged problem in the exact same manner – with text or email links. The use of a software application executing on the entity’s computing device is shown in Fig. 3 as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
546
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The interface teaches of Bueche – which are directly on point with the claims - are illustrated in part as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
571
395
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the P2P payment platform of Fleishman to add the holding account and hyperlink features of Bueche. The motivation to make this modification comes from Fleishman. It teaches, as quoted and illustrated above, that the payee is notified via an email or a text regarding the payment of funds by the payor. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and convenience of the system of Fleishman to add the holding account and interface features of Bueche.
With regard to Claims 2 – 9, Fleishman in view of Bueche teaches:
2. The transaction management system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to configure the one or more access options for the link by associating a time limit for access to the unique fund transfer hyperlink. (See at least Fleishman: 0084. See also Bueche, Fig. 7, reproduced above regarding expiration of the hyperlink.)
3. The transaction management system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to configure the one or more access options for the link by associating a visit count limit with the unique fund transfer hyperlink. (See at least Fleishman: 0084,wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that a link that expires would also expire after the link is traversed.)
4. The transaction management system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to generate the unique fund transfer hyperlink by associating the link to the electronic payment transaction from the first financial account and mapping the monetary value held in the holding account exclusively to the unique fund transfer hyperlink. (See at least Bueche teachings throughout relating to a “unique transaction ID” which, as would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, would be uniquely coded for that singular payment transaction.)
5. The transaction management system of claim 1, wherein the payment destination information comprises account information for a second financial account of the consumer banking service or a third-party financial account of a third-party payment service. (See at least Fleishman: 0009 which clearly acts as a third-party payment service or platform.)
6. The transaction management system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to transmit the electronic communication by transmitting, to the payee computing device, a text message comprising the unique fund transfer hyperlink, the monetary value associated with unique fund transfer hyperlink, and an identifier for the user associated with the first financial account. (See at least Fleishman: 0016 and throughout, wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the “message” could be a text, just as taught as well in Bueche.)
7. The transaction management system of claim 6, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to transmit the electronic communication by causing the payer computing device to provide, for display via a message graphical user interface, the text message in relation to the contact information of the entity. (See at least the figures reproduced above including the interface of the entity’s computing device and their contact information. Fig. 9a is one example from Fleishman.)
8. The transaction management system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to automatically transmit the electronic communication. (See at least Fleishman: 0009 wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “real time” means automatic. See also Bueche and the description pertaining to Fig. 7 and the automatic functions of the P2P payment system.)
9. The transaction management system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the transaction management system to, in response to transmitting the monetary value to the destination account, transmitting an electronic broadcast communication for payment transaction data corresponding to the electronic payment transaction to one or more third party payment processing computer systems associated with the destination account. (See at least Fleishman: Fig. 12 reproduced above.)
With regard to Claim 10, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 11, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 2 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 12, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 4 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 13, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 5and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 14, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 7 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 15, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 6 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 16, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 17, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 3 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 18, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 4 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 19, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 5 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 20, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 6 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. direct or P2P payments using links embedded in emails or texts or messages). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No.2025/0299169 to Kassemi et al. This reference relates to the concept of peer to peer transactions.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0042538 to Dheer et al. This reference relates to the concept of a P2P transfer without registering with a third party service.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0049577 to Wilson et al. This reference relates to the concept of the use of a third party service.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0082466 to Carlson et al. This reference relates to the concept of a holding account.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0111367 to Gallagher et al. This reference relates to the concept of the use of a link.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0310171 to Grossman et al. This reference relates to the concept of determining if sufficient funds exist.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
August 5, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
