DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 21-24 were canceled via a preliminary amendment filed on 11 November 2025. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending. Objections and rejection are recited below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application filed on 11 November 2025 claims priority from PCT/US2023/ 022008 filed on 12 May 2023. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 12 May 2023.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the Abstract is missing. Applicant is required to submit an Abstract to the specification. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the determining, generating, communicating, receiving and transferring limitations each refers to “with at least one processor”. It is believed the Applicant means to convey “with the at least one processor”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites:
The computer program product of claim 18, wherein, when determining the second system, the one or more instructions cause the at least one processor to:
determine the second system corresponding to the P2P payment account based on the data associated with the payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second system” in this claim. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a computer program product similar to the method of claim 3. 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.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of making a payment which is a fundamental economic practice grouped under methods of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]). Claims recite:
receiving a request from “a first user” to transfer a payment amount from a first user account corresponding to the first user to a second user having a peer-to-peer (P2P) payment account;
determining a “payment system” corresponding to the P2P payment account;
generating a virtual account creation request based on the P2P payment account;
communicating the virtual account creation request to “the payment system” associated with the P2P payment account;
receiving a virtual account identifier corresponding to the second user in response to the virtual account creation request; and
transferring the payment amount from the first user account associated with the first user to an account corresponding to the virtual account identifier.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as:
at least one processor,
a first device,
a first payment processing network, and
a “payment system”
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than apply a computerized system to the method steps corresponding to automating the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of making a payment using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 2-4 and 6-7 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of making a payment.
In claims 5 and 8, the features:
input from the first user via a graphical user interface; and
an issuer system
add technology to the abstract idea of the independent claim. However, a graphical user interface and an issuer system are generic technological components, and their use is in its normal, expected, and routine manner. The components are recited at a high level of generality which do not improve another technology or technical field nor the functioning of the computer itself.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the fundamental economic practice in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 9-16 otherwise styled as a system, and claims 17-20 styled as a computer program product would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammad et al (US Pub. No. 20120209749 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Hammad teaches apparatuses, methods, and systems for electronic purchase transactions, and to SNAP MOBILE PAYMENT APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS ("SNAP") [0003]. He teaches:
receiving, with at least one processor, a request from a first device operated by a first user to transfer a payment amount from a first user account corresponding to the first user and a first payment processing network to a second user having a peer-to-peer (P2P) payment account – [0026];
determining, with at least one processor, a payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account – [0026] and [0027];
generating, with at least one processor, a virtual account creation request based on the P2P payment account – [0026];
communicating, with at least one processor, the virtual account creation request to the payment system associated with the P2P payment account – [0026] and [0027];
receiving, with at least one processor, a virtual account identifier corresponding to the second user in response to the virtual account creation request – [0026] and [0027]; and
transferring, with at least one processor, the payment amount from the first user account associated with the first user to an account corresponding to the virtual account identifier – [0026] and [0027].
Regarding claim 2, 10 and 18, Hammad teaches:
receiving an account identifier associated with the second user and the P2P payment account – [0026] and [0027];
querying the payment system to request data associated with the payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account based on the account identifier – [0078] and [0079]; and
receiving the data associated with the payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account- [0078] and [0079].
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Hammad teaches determining the payment system as comprising:
determining the payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account based on the data associated with the payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account – [0026] and [0027].
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Hammad teaches:
receiving a response message from the payment system corresponding to the P2P payment account, the response message comprising an indication that the payment system determined to generate the virtual account identifier to receive the payment amount from the first user account – [0026].
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Hammad teaches:
receiving an input from the first user via a graphical user interface of an application associated with the first payment processing network – [0026], [0035] and [0093] and [Figs. 2A-F] and [Figs.3A-E]; and
generating a request based on the input received from the first user – [0026].
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Hammad teaches:
generating the virtual account identifier corresponding to the second user based on determining to generate the virtual account identifier to receive the payment amount from the first user account – [0026] and [0033];
generating a response to the virtual account creation request, the response comprising the virtual account identifier corresponding to the second user – [0026] and [0033]; and
communicating the response to the first payment processing network – [0026] and [0027].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Hammad teaches the virtual account identifier as corresponding to at least one of a debit card and a prepaid payment card – [0025] and [0041].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Hammad teaches the payment system as comprising an issuer system corresponding to the P2P payment account –[0064].
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Studnitzer: “VIRTUAL PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM”, (US Pub. No. 20220253854 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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 J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights