PRE-AUTHORIZED TRANSFER

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on 12th of December 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed 12/12/2025 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. 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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Analysis First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of “… receiving, at a first user device associated with a first user, an indication to pre-authorize a withdrawal by an intended recipient associated with a second user device separate from the first user device from a user account; receiving a pre-authorized amount at the first user device; providing first image data, the first image data being captured via an image capture device based on an interaction with a user interface that provides a selector to provide the first image data, wherein the first image data is provided after the selector is engaged in response to a prompt being displayed to capture the first image data, the first image data being associated with the intended recipient that is to receive the pre-authorized amount where the first image data corresponds to an image of the intended recipient, the intended recipient otherwise lacking access to the user account associated with the first user; forwarding the first image data and the pre-authorized amount to a server device; storing a code at the first user device, wherein the code: is generated when the first image data corresponding to the image of the intended recipient is received and the pre-authorized amount is received; and includes the pre-authorized amount to be withdrawn from the user account; sending the code to the second user device, wherein presentation of the code by a recipient causes: capturing second image data associated with the recipient in response to reading the code by an image capture device; performing image analysis on the captured second image data associated with the recipient using one of signal processing during digital image processing, image segmentation, or single particle tracking; comparing the analyzed second captured image data associated with the recipient with the first image data associated with the intended recipient; determining if the recipient is the intended recipient based on the comparison; and providing the pre-authorized amount to the recipient from the user account associated with the first user when the recipient is the intended recipient thereby allowing the recipient to directly withdraw the pre-authorized amount without access to the user account.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely allowing an intended recipient to withdraw a pre-authorized amount from another user’s account by using a code and image based identity verification to confirm that the recipient is the intended recipient. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., first/second user devices, image capture device, server device). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371 This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., first/second user devices, image capture device, server device) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., first/second user devices, image capture device, server device) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g., first/second user devices, image capture device, server device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 10 and 16. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For claim 2, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receiving an alert at the first user device when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient, wherein the alert includes the captured second image data and an option to authorize the providing of the pre-authorized amount to the recipient.” The limitation of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 3, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “sending an authorization from the first user device to provide the pre-authorized amount to the recipient when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient based on the comparison.” The limitation of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 4, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receiving an alert at the first user device when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient, wherein the alert includes the captured second image data and an option to deny the providing of the pre-authorized amount to the recipient.” The limitation of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 5, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “sending a denial of withdrawal from the first user device to provide the pre-authorized amount to the recipient when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient based on the comparison.” The limitation of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 6, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the first user is at a first location and the recipient is at a second location remote from the first location and the recipient receives the pre-authorized amount from the user account associated with the first user at the second location when the first user is at the first location separate from the second location.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For claim 7, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receiving an acknowledgement at the first user device that includes the captured second image data of the recipient.” The limitation of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 8, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the code is a quick read (QR) code.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For claim 9, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the QR code expires when the pre-authorized amount is provided to the recipient.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For claim 11, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receive an alert at the first user device when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient, wherein the alert includes the captured second image data and an option to authorize the providing of the pre-authorized amount to the recipient; and send an authorization from the first user device to provide the pre-authorized amount to the recipient when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient based on the comparison.” The limitation of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 12, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receive an alert at the first user device when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient, wherein the alert includes the captured second image data and an option to deny the providing of the pre-authorized amount to the recipient; and send a denial of withdrawal from the first user device to provide the pre-authorized amount to the recipient when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient based on the comparison.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 13, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the first user is at a first location and the recipient is at a second location remote from the first location and the recipient receives the pre-authorized amount from the user account associated with the first user at the second location when the first user is at the first location separate from the second location.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For claim 14, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receive an acknowledgement at the first user device that includes the captured second image data of the recipient.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 15, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the code is a quick read (QR) code and the QR code expires when the pre-authorized amount is provided to the recipient.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For claim 17, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receive an alert at the first user device when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient, wherein the alert includes the captured second image data and an option to authorize the providing of the pre-authorized amount to the recipient; and send an authorization from the first user device to provide the pre-authorized amount to the recipient when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient based on the comparison.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 18, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receive an alert at the first user device when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient, wherein the alert includes the captured second image data and an option to deny the providing of the pre-authorized amount to the recipient; and send a denial of withdrawal from the first user device to provide the pre-authorized amount to the recipient when a determination is made that the recipient is not the intended recipient based on the comparison.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 19, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the first user is at a first location and the recipient is at a second location remote from the first location and the recipient receives the pre-authorized amount from the user account associated with the first user at the second location when the first user is at the first location separate from the second location.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For claim 20, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “receive an acknowledgement at the first user device that includes the captured second image data of the recipient.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Prior Art Not Relied Upon The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows: Andral, U.S. Patent App. No. 20220374878 A1, discloses a key-code based money transfer system. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5. 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 on 571-272-3955. 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. /EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 09/19/2026