DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claim amendments were filed in 7/3/2025.
Claims 1-22, 24, 32, 35, and 41 are canceled.
Claims 23, 25-31, 33-34, and 36-40, and 42 are pending.
Claims 23, 34, and 39 are independent.
Claims 23, 34, and 39 are currently amended.
Claims 25-31, 33, 36-38, 40, and 42 are previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of claims 23, 25-34, and 36-40, and 42 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting with regards to U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendment.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. 11,176,558 B1
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 in view of Wolcott (US 2014/0269270 A1).
Claims 25-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 in view of Wolcott (US 2014/0269270 A1), further in view of Official Notice.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 in view of Wolcott (US 2014/0269270 A1).
Claims 36-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 in view of Wolcott (US 2014/0269270 A1), further in view of Official Notice.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 in view of Wolcott (US 2014/0269270 A1).
Claims 40 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,558 B1 in view of Wolcott (US 2014/0269270 A1), further in view of Official Notice.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims share substantially similar limitations drawn to scheduling payment submission, including receiving a denial message, generating a submission schedule based on a determined issuer, and transmitting an authorization request according to the schedule. Representative claim 23 shares substantially similar limitations with reference claim 5 as demonstrated by the following claim chart.
Current Application
Reference Patent (U.S. 11,176,558 B1)
23. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for resubmitting transaction requests, comprising:
receiving, at an acquirer computing system, a denial message from an issuer processor in response to a transmitted first authorization request including account information of an account associated with a payment card network and the issuer processor;
determining, at the acquirer computing system, a Bank Identification Number (BIN) or a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with the denial message, wherein the resubmission schedule is dynamically adjusted during a delay period between authorization attempts;
generating, at the acquirer computing system, a resubmission schedule based on the determined BIN or the determined RRC received with the denial message; and
transmitting, by the acquirer computing system, a second authorization request to the issuer processor based on the generated resubmission schedule, wherein the resubmission schedule is iteratively refined based on outcome data of one or more prior authorization requests.
1. A method for payment submission scheduling, comprising:
receiving, by a processor at an acquirer computing system, an electronic authorization request submitted by a merchant computing system for a transaction to be submitted within a specified time window, wherein the merchant computing system is associated with a merchant,
wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor;
performing, by the processor, a statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in a database of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests of the issuer processor;
generating, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request within the specified time window based on the statistical analysis of the historical electronic authorization request processing results of the issuer processor, wherein the submission schedule identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted to the issuer processor in order to increase a likelihood of a successful authorization of the transaction relative to a process that does not consider the likelihood of a successful authorization at a time the electronic authorization request is to be transmitted; and
transmitting, by the acquirer computing system, the electronic authorization request to the issuer processor, within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an electronic authorization result from the issuer processor; and
updating the database of historical electronic authorization request processing results of the issuer processor using the received authorization result.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:
retransmitting, by the acquirer computing system to an issuer processor, the electronic authorization request when the authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
As demonstrated above, instant claim 23 shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 5. The limitations are mapped to reference base claim 1 above. While reference base claim 1 recites performance of an analysis of information received from “a” previous electronic request, it does not explicitly specify that the information is from “the” same previously recited authorization request. However, reference claim 5, which includes all limitations of base claims 1 and 4, further recites “receive an electronic authorization result from the issuer processor; and update the database of historical electronic authorization request processing results of the issuer processor using the received electronic authorization result” (base claim 4) and “retransmit, to an issuer processor, the electronic authorization request when the electronic authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request” (claim 5). Thus, reference claim 5 explicitly covers information from the same previously recited electronic authorization request that failed, as well as the limitations reciting “wherein the resubmission schedule is dynamically adjusted during a delay period between authorization attempts” and “wherein the resubmission schedule is iteratively refined based on outcome data of one or more prior authorization requests”.
Reference claim 5 includes identifying an optimal time slot to increase a likelihood of successful authorization by considering the historical likelihood of a success at certain time windows, but does not explicitly recite variable-length time slots.
However, Wolcott teaches identifying variable-length time slots based on historical data and volume (see para. 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of reference claim 5 to include the features of Wolcott. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to lessen the negative effects of network congestion (see Wolcott, para. 0001).
Claim 25 recites wherein the generated resubmission schedule identifies i) a day of the week for transmitting the second authorization request and ii) a time slot identifying a window of time of that day of the week. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify a schedule including a day of the week and a time slot of that day. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 26 recites wherein the generated resubmission schedule identifies i) a day of the month for transmitting the second authorization request and ii) a time slot identifying a window of time of the day of the month for transmitting the second authorization request. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify a schedule including day of the month and a time slot on the day of the month. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 27 recites wherein first authorization request is for a first payment transaction of a recurring billing arrangement, the recurring billing arrangement including the first payment transaction and one or more scheduled payment transactions, and wherein the generated resubmission schedule identifies i) a periodic schedule for resubmission of the second authorization request and ii) a time slot identifying a window of time of each day on the periodic schedule. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform recurring transactions; and to specify a periodic schedule identifying a window of time on each day of a schedule for recurring transactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 28 recites wherein the recurring billing arrangement is based on an installment payment obligation. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have recurring billing arrangements be based on an installment payment obligation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 29 recites wherein the recurring billing arrangement is based on any of a subscription obligation and an installment payment obligation. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have recurring billing arrangements be based on any or a subscription obligation and an installment payment obligation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 30 recites wherein the time slot identifies a period of time determined based at least in part on a number of available time slots for a day. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to identify a period of time determined based at least in part on a number of available time slots for a day. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 31 recites wherein the time slot is selected from a set of preferred time slots associated with the first authorization request. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a time slot from a set of preferred time slots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 33 recites receiving, at the acquirer computing system, a denial message from the issuer processor in response to the transmitted second authorization request; and transmitting, by the acquirer computing system, a third authorization request to the issuer processor based on the generated resubmission schedule, wherein the third authorization request is for a second scheduled payment transaction of the one or more scheduled payment transactions. As discussed above, reference claim 4 includes updating the database and re-transmitting authorization requests upon failure(s).
Related independent product claim 34 is rejected over reference claim 10 for similar reasons as discussed with regards to independent method claim 23.
Claim 36 recites wherein first authorization request is for a first payment transaction of a recurring billing arrangement, the recurring billing arrangement including the first payment transaction and one or more scheduled payment transactions, and wherein the generated resubmission schedule identifies any of: a day of the week, a day of the month, and a periodic schedule for transmitting the second authorization request. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have recurring billing arrangements including a first payment transaction and one or more scheduled payment transactions; and to have a schedule which identifies any of: a day of the week, a day of the month, and a periodic schedule. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 37 recites wherein the recurring billing arrangement is based on an installment payment obligation. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have recurring billing arrangements be based on an installment payment obligation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 38 recites wherein the recurring billing arrangement is based on a subscription obligation. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have recurring billing arrangements be based on an subscription obligation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Related independent system claim 39 is rejected over reference claim 14 for similar reasons as discussed with regards to independent method claim 23.
Claim 40 recites wherein first authorization request is for a first payment transaction of a recurring billing arrangement, the recurring billing arrangement including the first payment transaction and one or more scheduled payment transactions, and wherein the generated resubmission schedule identifies one of: a day of the week, a day of the month, and a periodic schedule for transmitting the one or more scheduled payment transactions. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have recurring billing arrangements including a first payment transaction and one or more scheduled payment transactions; and to have a schedule which identifies any of: a day of the week, a day of the month, and a periodic schedule. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 42 recites wherein the generated resubmission schedule identifies a plurality of time slots, wherein the second authorization request is to be submitted in at least one of the plurality of time slots. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify a schedule identifying a plurality of time slots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this element as it would have merely been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elrod (US 2013/0311369 A1) discloses a payment processing system that allows partial captures and full deposits after receiving a partial authorization result on a requested card transaction. When the partial amount authorized is less than the full transaction amount, but above a certain value (which can be merchant specified), the system can accept the partial amount (a partial deposit or partial capture) as payment for the transaction. When the partial amount authorized is less than the full transaction amount, and below a certain value (which can be merchant specified), the system can make a full deposit of the transaction amount. The system can use one or more factors, including historical information, in determining whether to attempt a full deposit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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 attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693