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 Rejections - 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
3. The examiner contends that, under the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG, to determine the patent-eligibility of an application, a two- part analysis has to be conducted.
Part 1: it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Part 2A: Prong 1: (1) Determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or one of the judicial exceptions. Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. include:
1. Certain method of organizing human activity such as Fundamental Economic Practices, Commercial and Legal Interactions, or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
2. A mental process.
3. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Part 2A: Prong 2: determine if the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Part 2B: determine if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Analysis
4. Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is found that the claim indeed recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process - one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1), using claim 1 as the representative claim, it is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. For instance, the claim language “a data processing method…configured to manage the pre-paid monetary funds actually received by the payment institution to handle the payment business entrusted by the customer; the account system is provided with a multi-level account configured to retain the monetary funds; the account system sends the status information of each account to the transaction forwarding system, and the transaction forwarding system sends the status information of each data center to the payment institution, the data processing method comprises: during processing the transaction data of a target user, when an available data center fails or is busy, the dispatching apparatus uses any other available data center in the transaction system to process the transaction data of the target user;…controls the transaction data to circulate in the account system during processing the transaction data of the user;…creates a corresponding first-level account for the user, wherein the first-level account is an upper-level account of all second-level accounts created with respect to the user;… determines an available data center in the at least two data centers; …allocates resources in the available data center a second-level account for processing transaction data from the user, and allocates resources of the second-level account as a third-level account corresponding to the user in the data centers;…creates a corresponding first-level account for the user, wherein the first-level account is an upper-level account of all second-level accounts created with respect to the user; associates the second-level accounts of the user with the first-level account of the user as an account system of the user, so that a resource amount in the first-level account and a resource amount in the second-level account are independent from each other and are mutually transferrable, and…controls the transaction data to circulate in the account system during processing the transaction data of the user” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea. In addition, the limitations “…determines an available data center in the at least two data centers; …allocates resources in the available data center a second-level account for processing transaction data from the user, and allocates resources of the second-level account as a third-level account corresponding to the user in the data centers;…creates a corresponding first-level account for the user, wherein the first-level account is an upper-level account of all second-level accounts created with respect to the user; associates the second-level accounts of the user with the first-level account of the user as an account system of the user, so that a resource amount in the first-level account and a resource amount in the second-level account are independent from each other and are mutually transferrable, and…controls the transaction data to circulate in the account system during processing the transaction data of the user” can be performed in the human mind. Any steps that can be performed in the human mind fall into the category of a mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the examiner contends that the claim recites a combination of additional elements including “dispatching apparatus,” “account system,” “transaction system,” “router,” and “network.” These additional elements, considered in the context of claim 1 as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are conventional systems that are being used as tools in executing the claimed process. In other words, these systems, with their already available basic functions, are simply being applied to the abstract idea and being used as tools in executing the claimed process. In addition, the limitations “the provision system comprises an account system, transaction forwarding system and a payment institution; the multiple-level account comprises a first level account, a second level account and a third level account to support the processing of high concurrent real-time business, the first level account is the upper-level account of the second level account, the third level account is the lower-level account of the second-level account, and the lower-level accounts are related to each other through the corresponding upper-level account; the first-level account includes a platform-level master account, a dedicated withdrawal account and a large amount withdrawal account; the second-level account includes IDC accounts: and the third-level account includes withdrawal sub-accounts and deposit sub-accounts, the dedicated withdrawal account is used to process dedicated withdrawal business, and the large amount withdrawal account is used to process large amount withdrawal business, the deposit sub-accounts are used to process deposit typed transactions; and the transaction forwarding system is provided with multiple data centers serving the payment institution, each data manages a second level account, a router is provided between different data centers, the multiple data centers from a network by a dispatching apparatus” are recited to further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. Thus, it is determined that claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 1 is the generically recited “dispatching apparatus,” “account system,” “transaction system,” “router,” and “network.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner (see page 25). Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Furthermore, the limitations in the dependent claims are thus subject to the same analysis as in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as in claim 1 above. More specifically, dependent claims 3 and 4 do not recite additional elements but merely further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. However, dependent claims 5 and 13-22 recite additional elements, but these additional elements comprise the analyses of data, which is nothing but the automation of mental tasks. See Benson, Bancorp and Cyberphone. Also see Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that claim 1 does not belong to an abstract concept, the examiner disagrees. It is determined that the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. For instance, the claim language “a data processing method…configured to manage the pre-paid monetary funds actually received by the payment institution to handle the payment business entrusted by the customer; the account system is provided with a multi-level account configured to retain the monetary funds; the account system sends the status information of each account to the transaction forwarding system, and the transaction forwarding system sends the status information of each data center to the payment institution, the data processing method comprises: during processing the transaction data of a target user, when an available data center fails or is busy, the dispatching apparatus uses any other available data center in the transaction system to process the transaction data of the target user;…controls the transaction data to circulate in the account system during processing the transaction data of the user;…creates a corresponding first-level account for the user, wherein the first-level account is an upper-level account of all second-level accounts created with respect to the user;… determines an available data center in the at least two data centers; …allocates resources in the available data center a second-level account for processing transaction data from the user, and allocates resources of the second-level account as a third-level account corresponding to the user in the data centers;…creates a corresponding first-level account for the user, wherein the first-level account is an upper-level account of all second-level accounts created with respect to the user; associates the second-level accounts of the user with the first-level account of the user as an account system of the user, so that a resource amount in the first-level account and a resource amount in the second-level account are independent from each other and are mutually transferrable, and…controls the transaction data to circulate in the account system during processing the transaction data of the user” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea. In addition, the limitations “…determines an available data center in the at least two data centers; …allocates resources in the available data center a second-level account for processing transaction data from the user, and allocates resources of the second-level account as a third-level account corresponding to the user in the data centers;…creates a corresponding first-level account for the user, wherein the first-level account is an upper-level account of all second-level accounts created with respect to the user; associates the second-level accounts of the user with the first-level account of the user as an account system of the user, so that a resource amount in the first-level account and a resource amount in the second-level account are independent from each other and are mutually transferrable, and…controls the transaction data to circulate in the account system during processing the transaction data of the user” can be performed in the human mind. Any steps that can be performed in the human mind fall into the category of a mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
The examiner contends that there is a clear difference between the improvements in computer functionality, on one hand, and the use of existing computer as tools to perform a particular task, on the other; the solution addressed by the applicant’s claims is a business problem and not a technical problem. Rather than addressing a problem unique to the technology in which the solution is implemented, applicant’s claim 1 merely automates, using generic computer technology, a business process in which profitability is increased by processing transaction information. Thus, it is determined that claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Further, the alleged advantages that applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in computer-based process; that is, a process in which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to receive, process, and output data.
In response to applicant’s argument that claim 1 contains significantly more technical features, the examiner disagrees. The examiner contends that it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 1 is the generically recited “dispatching apparatus,” “account system,” “transaction system,” “router,” and “network.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner (see page 25). Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights