Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on December 11, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260723 for references purposes only.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. The instant application claims the benefit of application 18/618,821.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 11, 2025 and January 22, 2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are objected to because they recite “a provider device.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “the provider device.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of verifying a payment transmission, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 1, representative of claims 9 and 17, includes the following limitations:
Receiving a request for payment transmission;
Transmitting a first message comprising non-financial information and a first verification element, wherein the first message does not initiate a payment transaction;
Receiving a first response;
Verifying a destination device;
Authorizing the payment transmission from a provider device to the destination device.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
Communications circuitry from a provider device;
Payment circuitry;
Destination device;
Account identification circuitry.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or are 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).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of a “communications circuitry from a provider device”, “payment circuitry”, “destination device”, and “account identification circuitry” are mere instructions to apply an exception, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of a “communications circuitry from a provider device”, “payment circuitry”, “destination device”, and “account identification circuitry” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of a “communications circuitry from a provider device”, “payment circuitry”, “destination device”, and “account identification circuitry” are simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and do not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites receiving a request for mutual verification, transmitting a second message, and receiving a second response, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 2 also recites verifying the provider device, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 3 recites transmitting a first payment to the destination device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 4 recites transmitting a verification failure notification, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 5 recites a database storing account parameters, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 6 recites receiving contextual parameters, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 7 recites transmitting a verification failure notification, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8 recites instructions for requesting mutual verification, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vilmont (US 2017/0200137) in view of Oskolkov et al. (US 2013/0060708).
Claims 1, 9, 17
Vilmont discloses:
receiving, by communications circuitry from a provider device (sender device, see [0083]), a request for payment transmission (transfer request, see [0083]);
transmitting, by payment circuitry to a destination device, a first real-time payment message (message, see [0025]) comprising (ii) a first verification element (qualifying offer combination, see [0102, 0114]);
receiving, by the communications circuitry from the destination device, a first response (receiver device sends a response, see [0102, 0120]) to the first real-time payment message;
verifying, by account identification circuitry using the first response, the destination device (receiver confirms/approves, see [0102, 0120]); and
authorizing, by the account identification circuitry, the payment transmission from the provider device to the destination device (transfer initiated between sender and receiver, see [0005]).
Vilmont does not disclose:
(i) first non-financial information… transaction.
Oskolkov teaches:
(i) first non-financial information (phone number or email address, see [0010]), wherein the first real-time payment message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction (still need to compare received address to address associated with request to determine if a match, see [0010]).
Vilmont discloses receiving a request for payment transmission, transmitting a first real-time payment message, receiving a first response, verifying the destination device, and authorizing the payment transmission. Vilmont does not disclose non-financial information and the first message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction, but Oskolkov does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the combined security for electronic transfers of Vilmont with the non-financial information and the first message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction of Oskolkov because 1) a need exists for receiving and handling secure transfers between devices at different locations or domains within electronic transfer networks (see Vilmont [0002]); and 2) a need exists for effectively managing electronic monetary transfers between an individual sending money and another person receiving the money using their respective personal devices and when both the individual and other person do not have a registered account associated with a financial entity (see Oskolkov [0005]). Using non-financial information and a first message that does not initiate a real-time payment transaction can be useful in electronic money transfers where the individuals do not have a registered account associated with a financial entity.
Claims 2, 10, 18
Furthermore, Vilmont discloses:
receiving, by the communications circuitry from the destination device, a request for mutual verification (receiver’s access permissions, qualifications, and/or risks, see [0115]);
transmitting, by the payment circuitry to a provider device, a second real-time payment message (message, see [0025]) comprising (ii) a second verification element (qualifying offer combination, e.g. all previously unavailable offers at sender’s location, see [0102, 0116]);
receiving, by the communications circuitry from the provider device, a second response (receiver confirms/approves, see [0102, 0120]) to the second real-time payment message (message, see [0025]); and
verifying, by account identification circuitry using the second response, the provider device (update sender’s credentials, see [0112-0114]).
Furthermore, Oskolkov teaches:
(i) second non-financial information (unique code, see [0010]), wherein the second real-time payment message does not initiate the real-time payment transaction (still need to compare received code to code that was sent to determine if a match, see [0010]).
Claims 3, 11, 19
Furthermore, Oskolkov teaches:
in response to verifying the destination device, transmitting, via the payment circuitry, a first real-time payment (transferred funds, see [0040]) to the destination device, wherein the first real-time payment comprises an irrevocable transfer of funds (one-time secure token for a single withdrawal, see [0065, 0088]) to an account associated with the destination device.
Claims 4, 12, 20
Furthermore, Oskolkov teaches:
transmitting, via the payment circuitry, a verification failure notification (transfer failure message, see [0061]) to the provider device in an instance in which a responsive authorization associated with the first real-time payment message is not received from the destination device.
Claims 5, 13
Furthermore, Oskolkov teaches:
an account information database (database, see [0194]) stores one or more additional account parameters (stored credentials, e.g. password, pass code, see [0083, 0132]), wherein generating the first verification element is further based on the one or more additional account parameters (access to account and profile, see [0083, 0132]).
Claims 6, 14
Furthermore, Vilmont discloses:
receiving, via contextual analysis circuitry, one or more first contextual parameters of the provider device indicative of a physical location of the provider device (sender device location GPS, see [0086, 0107]); and
receiving, via the contextual analysis circuitry, one or more second contextual parameters of the destination device indicative of a physical location of the destination device (receiver device location GPS, see [0086, 0112]).
Claims 7, 15
Furthermore, Oskolkov teaches:
transmitting, via the payment circuitry, a verification failure notification (transfer failure message, see [0061]) to the destination device in an instance in which a responsive authorization associated with the first real-time payment message is not received from the provider device.
Claims 8, 16
Furthermore, Vilmont discloses:
the first verification element comprises instructions for requesting mutual verification (receiver’s access permissions, qualifications, and/or risks, see [0115]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent 12,614,176.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of US patent 12,614,176.
The instant application is directed to receiving a request for payment transmission; transmitting, to a destination device, a first message comprising non-financial information and a first element, wherein the first message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction; receiving a first response; verifying the destination device; and authorizing the payment transmission (see claim 1).
US patent 12,614,176 is directed to receiving a request for payment transmission; identifying, using account information of a recipient, a destination device within a database; generating a first element; transmitting the first element to the destination device via a message, wherein the message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction; verifying an identity of the destination device in response to receiving authorization from the destination device; generating, in response to receiving a request for mutual verification, a second element for the provider device; transmitting the second element to the provider device via a second message, wherein the second message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction, wherein the first and second message consist of non-financial information; verifying an identity of the provider device in response to authorization from the provider device; and transmitting a notification to the destination device (see claim 1).
The instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of US patent 12,614,176 because both encompass receiving a request for payment transmission; transmitting a first message comprising non-financial information and a first element, wherein the first message does not initiate a real-time payment transaction; receiving a first response; verifying a destination device; and authorizing the payment transmission (see claim 1 of instant application and claim 1 of US patent 12,614,176).
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Larson et al. (US 2020/0366671) discloses an identity verification and management system.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.
