DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in reply to the response and/or arguments filed for Application 17/539,245 filed on 22 May 2026.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 20 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception.
1. Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, is directed to patent-eligible subject matter because it recites an inventive concept for resolving a particular computer-centric and artificial-intelligence (AI)-centric problem and thus, considered in combination, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because it conflates organizing human activity performed using a computer with a technological solution. Many organizing human activity processes may be implemented in a particular technological environment, but the involvement of technology does not make them technological improvements. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (cautioning that "not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent"); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that the addition of novel or non-routine components did not turn the abstract idea of using advertising as an exchange or currency into something concrete); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The improvements Appellant touts, at best, reflect an improvement to a process that is the abstract idea itself, not an improvement in the way computer components carry out their basic functions which is not sufficient for patent eligibility.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (recommending, charging the determined funding source) data/information, using computer-related technology. 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)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
2. Applicant further argues that, when evaluated as a whole, claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind and is directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computing system by improving a trie data structure with more relevant rules based on analysis of AI-generated vector representations of transaction data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error at Prong One, at least because the Examiner does not reject claim 1 on the basis of reciting mental processes or mathematical concepts. In this instance, the additional elements recited do not effect an improvement in the functioning of a computer. Instead, the additional elements merely reflect the implementation of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. Moreover, the claim contains no specificity about how the purported invention directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computing system achieves those results.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, method claim 1 is directed towards facilitating prioritizing rules and/or conditions related to the exchange of data in association with recommending a specified funding source. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (charging the determined funding source) data/information, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people grouping, in step 2A prong one.
Claim 1 recites:
“prior to a transaction, the transaction comprising an exchange of data:
associating a plurality of funding sources with an account;
defining one or more rules, each rule corresponding to a condition and a specified funding source from the plurality of associated funding sources wherein defining the one or more rules comprises translating each rule to a respective JavaScript Object Notation document, wherein each JavaScript Object Notation document comprises a respective plurality of rule keys each rule key being associated with a value defining a limit or a range, wherein each JavaScript Object Notation document is to be evaluated individually;
assigning a priority to each respective JavaScript Object Notation document;
generating, by an Open Policy Agent, based on each respective JavaScript Object Notation document, a tiered trie data structure, wherein the generating the tiered trie data structure comprises:
excluding a subset of rule keys of the JavaScript Object Notation documents from the tiered trie data structure such that a minimal set of rule keys and associated values remains;
including a higher tier of the tiered trie data structure configured for partial evaluation of a subset of values of the rule keys of the JavaScript Object Notation documents, wherein the tiered trie data is to be evaluated in parallel;
storing the one or more rules and the priorities against the account as the tiered trie data structure; and,
at a time of a transaction:
at a computer server executing a payment processing engine, receiving, over a computer network, data describing the transaction from an issuing computer server;
binding the transaction to a set of categories, and adding the category to enrichment information to be applied to the rules;
determining, by a policy engine executed by the computer server, if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules, the funding source from the satisfied rule being the determined funding source unless more than one rule has a satisfied condition, wherein determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules is performed by traversing rules stored in the trie data structure in parallel;
wherein, in the event of more than one rule with a satisfied condition, the computer server executing a payment processing engine determines the highest priority rule among all satisfied conditions as the funding source to be charged; and
charging the determined funding source, wherein, in the event of determining that no condition is satisfied, charging any one of the plurality of associated funding sources; and wherein the method comprises:
after one or more transactions by a device associated with a first account:
deducing, by artificial intelligence, one or more transaction behaviors; and adding one or more rules to the trie data structure, each rule corresponding to a condition and a specified funding source, based on the one or more deduced transaction behaviors;
the specified funding source remote from the computer server and selected from the group consisting of credit card, debit card, and e-wallet, wherein the adding is based at least in part on:
receiving, by an artificial-intelligence model, transaction data of transactions of a plurality of accounts in a vector representation;
comparing the vector representation of the transaction data of the plurality of accounts to vector representations of transaction data for the one or more transactions by a device associated with the first account to identify an additional account matching the first account;
identifying at least one additional rule configured for use by an additional trie data structure of the additional account matching; and
selecting at least one additional rule as the one or more rules to be added to the trie data structure”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional element(s) of the claim such as a “computer server”, “payment processing engine”, “computer network”, “issuing computer server”, “policy engine”, “JavaScript Object Notation Document”, “tiered trie data structure”, “artificial intelligence”, represent the use of computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply 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 represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (recommending, charging the determined funding source) data/information.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (recommending, charging the determined funding source) data/information, using computer-related technology. 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)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 8 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 8 accordingly.
In the instant case, method claim 15 is directed towards facilitating prioritizing rules and/or conditions related to the transfer of data tokens in association with recommending a specified funding source. Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (charging the determined funding source) data/information, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people grouping, in step 2A prong one.
Claim 15 recites:
“prior to a transfer of data tokens:
associating a plurality of token sources with an account;
defining one or more rules, each rule corresponding to a condition and a specified token source from the plurality of associated token sources, wherein defining the one or more rules comprises translating each rule to a respective JavaScript Object Notation document, wherein each JavaScript Object Notation document comprises a respective plurality of rule keys each rule key being associated with a value defining a limit or a range, wherein each JavaScript Object Notation document is to be evaluated individually;
assigning a priority to each respective JavaScript Object Notation document;
generating, by an Open Policy Agent, based on each respective JavaScript Object Notation document, a tiered trie data structure, wherein the generating the tiered trie data structure comprises:
excluding a subset of rule keys of the JavaScript Object Notation documents from the tiered trie data structure such that a minimal set of rule keys and associated values remains;
including a higher tier of the tiered trie data structure configured for partial evaluation of a subset of values of the rule keys of the JavaScript Object Notation documents, wherein the tiered trie data is to be evaluated in parallel;
storing the one or more rules and the priorities against the account as the tiered trie data structure; and,
at a time of a transfer of data tokens:
at a computer server executing a payment processing engine, receiving, over a computer network, data describing the transfer from an issuing computer server;
binding the transfer to a set of categories, and adding the category to enrichment information to be applied to the rules;
determining, by a policy engine executed by the computer server, if the transfer satisfies any condition of the one or more rules, the token source from the satisfied rule being the determined token source unless more than one rule has a satisfied condition, wherein determining if the transfer satisfies any condition is performed by traversing rules stored in the trie data structure in parallel;
wherein, in the event of more than one rule with a satisfied condition, the computer server executing a payment processing engine determines the highest priority rule among all satisfied conditions determines the token source to be used; and
using the determined token source, wherein, in the event of determining that no condition is satisfied, using any one of the plurality of associated token sources; and
wherein the method comprises:
after one or more transfers:
deducing, by artificial intelligence, one or more transfer behaviors; and
adding one or more rules, each rule corresponding to a condition and a specified source, based on the one or more deduced transfer behaviors;
the specified source remote from the computer server and selected from the group consisting of credit card, debit card and e-wallet, wherein the adding is based at least in part on:
receiving, by an artificial-intelligence model, transaction data of transactions of a plurality of accounts in a vector representation;
comparing the vector representation of the transaction data of the plurality of accounts to vector representations of transaction data for the one or more transactions by a device associated with the first account to identify an additional account matching the first account;
identifying at least one additional rule configured for use by an additional trie data structure of the additional account matching; and
selecting at least one additional rule as the one or more rules to be added to the trie data structure”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed step 2A prong two, the additional element(s) of the claim such as a “computer server”, “payment processing engine”, “computer network”, “issuing computer server”, “policy engine”, “JavaScript Object Notation Document”, “tiered trie data structure”, “artificial intelligence”, represent the use of computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply 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 represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (recommending, charging the determined funding source) data/information.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of conducting a financial-related transaction (determining a funding source) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited – identifying (defining one or more rules), sorting (assigning a priority to each of the one or more rules), storing, receiving, evaluating/comparing (determining if the transaction satisfies any condition of the one or more rules), and processing (recommending, charging the determined funding source) data/information, using computer-related technology. 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)). Hence, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 and 21 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people, because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record(s) and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CATALINE et al. (US 2012/0233064 A1) discloses a system and method for selectable funding of electronic transactions. a system for transferring funds to pay bills and to and from selected accounts on an optimized is provided. A mediation engine may manage the payments made to selected payees, including by scheduling the payments and selecting sources for funds. a rules-based optimizer may automatically select the least-cost or other most efficient or desirable transaction, given the customer's available funds, types of funds and payment date. All payment providers and payees may be manipulated using one seamless view. A customer service representative may also view the transfers.
Gaddam et al. (US 11,144,902 B2) discloses dynamic account selection. Embodiments automatically select one of the multiple pre-generated payment cards provisioned on a mobile device. The multiple pre-generated payment cards (real or virtual) may each have a different credit limit. The mobile device
may automatically select one of the multiple payment cards based on a transaction value of a transaction that is being conducted. An available credit limit of the selected payment card may be equal to or slightly greater than the transaction value. In some embodiments, the available credit limit of the
selected payment card may be closer to the transaction value than the available credit limits of the remaining payment cards. In some embodiments, the different payment cards may be provisioned in a chip-and-pin based smart credit card or mobile wallet.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights