CTFR 17/638,573 CTFR 82063 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Analysis Claim 1: Ineligible. The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention ( Step 1: YES ). The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps a computer-implemented method for management of a transaction within a network , the network comprising a first entity, a transaction server and a second entity, wherein the transaction is taking place at the first entity and the management of the transaction comprises an authorization phase in which the second entity determines if the transaction is to be approved, and a clearing phase in which, if the transaction has been approved, transaction data is exchanged between the first entity and the second entity, the method comprising: receiving, with the transaction server, an authorization request message from the first entity, wherein the authorization request message is associated with the transaction; determining, with the transaction server, that the authorization request message includes a final transaction indicator, wherein the final transaction indicator is a data element providing an indication that the clearing phase can be performed, and the first entity authorizes the transaction to occur as a final transaction which is confirmed to occur and corresponds to a known amount, and wherein the data element further authorizes the transaction server to generate a clearing request message on behalf of the first entity; sending, with the transaction server, the authorization request message to the second entity; determining, with the second entity, that the authorization request message includes the final transaction indicator; receiving, with the transaction server, an authorization request response message from the second entity; analyzing, with the transaction server, the received authorization request response message to determine if the received authorization request response message contains an approval indicator, the approval indicator indicating that the second entity approves the transaction; wherein in the event that the received authorization request response message contains the approval indicator and the transaction is associated with a transaction indicator, the transaction indicator indicating that the clearing phase can be performed, the transaction server automatically generates and submits a clearing request message on behalf of the first entity for enabling the clearing phase to be performed without waiting for a clearing request from the first entity; and rejects any further clearing request message from the first entity to avoid sending the any further clearing request message to the second entity; and further wherein in response to the second entity approving the authorization request message, the second entity is configured to post the transaction to an account associated with the authorization request message in real-time and immediately after the authorization request message is approved to update a statement of the account in real-time prior to receiving the clearing request message from the transaction server . In order words, the claim describe a process for collecting information, comparing and analyzing it, and using rules to identify options displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”), or in the alternative, the organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as following rules. These limitations fall under the “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” groups ( Step 2A1-Yes ). Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using computer system and devices/server (processors) in a network environment. The processors in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The network limitation is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea ( Step 2A2-No ). Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B , i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B . Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO) . The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 11-13 recite corresponding system, program product, and computer-readable medium equivalents of claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra . Claims 2-3, 14 recite wherein analyzing the received authorization request response message further comprises determining if the received authorization request response message contains the final transaction indicator and wherein in the event that the received authorization request response message contains the approval indicator and the final transaction indicator, the transaction server automatically generates and submits the clearing request message on behalf of the first entity to enable the clearing phase to be performed without waiting for a clearing request from the first entity; analyzing the received authorization request message to determine if the received authorization request message contains the final transaction indicator and wherein in the event that the received authorization request message contains the final transaction indicator and the received authorization request response message contains the approval indicator, the transaction server automatically generates and submits the clearing request message on behalf of the first entity to enable the clearing phase to be performed without waiting for a clearing request from the first entity. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra . Claims 4-5, 15 recite adding transaction-related data to the authorization request message to form an enhanced authorization request message; and sending the enhanced authorization request message to the second entity; wherein the transaction-related data comprises one or more of: interchange-related information, information about a clearing cycle in which the transaction will be cleared, and information about a settlement service which will be used to settle the transaction. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra . Claims 6-9, 16 and 19 recite generating the clearing request message within a pre-specified time frame; generating and adding additional information for use in generation of the clearing request message; wherein the additional information comprises the identification of the interchange rate to be applied when such information is not provided by the first entity; wherein in the event the received authorization request response message contains the approval indicator and no transaction indicator, the transaction server waits until a clearing request message is received from the first entity before enabling the clearing phase to be performed. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra . Claim 10 recites monitoring an incoming clearing request message from the first entity; and blocking the incoming clearing request message from the first entity in the event that the transaction server has already generated a clearing request message. This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra . Claims 17 and 21 recite wherein to analyze the received authorization request response message further comprises to determine if the received authorization request response message contains the transaction indicator and wherein in the event that the received authorization request response message contains the approval indicator and the transaction indicator, the transaction server is to automatically generate and submit a clearing request message on behalf of the first entity to enable the clearing phase to be performed without waiting for a clearing request from the first entity. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claimed invention provides technical improvement as described in the specification, and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, Applicant asserts that the following features integrates the abstract idea into a practical application: Double-blocking behavior. Transaction indicator. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The double blocking behavior of the transaction server and the transaction indicator both can be replicated by humans as mental processes (including the use of pen and paper), and so are still part of the abstract mental process. The instant claims are directed to providing an abstract business solution to an abstract business problem of clearing and settling transactions between an acquirer and an issuer via an intermediary server. But, a solution to an abstract business problem is still an abstract business solution. Rather than providing a technical solution that improves the way a computer/network works, Applicant’s invention merely improves the abstract idea directed to transaction clearing and settlement between and an acquirer and an issuer. The computer is then applied to this abstract idea. This is not enough to transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See, e.g., Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer” “is not ‘enough ’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo , 566 U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp ., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”). “At best, the claim[] describe[s] the automation of [a] fundamental economic concept . . . through the use of generic-computer functions.” OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363. It is well settled, though, that automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept. See Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (explaining that “if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on . . . a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility”) (internal alteration, citation, and quotations omitted); Intellectual Ventures , 792 F.3d at 1367 (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can . (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) Again, a claim directed to a unique and advantageous financial arrangement is nonetheless directed to a financial arrangement and constitutes an abstract idea. “[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p. 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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. /OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 2 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 3 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 4 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 5 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 6 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 7 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 8 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 9 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 17/638,573 Page 10 Art Unit: 3691
Prosecution Insights