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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 07/23/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's response the 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues are not directed to an abstract idea (response at 19-20).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the "claims recite the abstract idea of “tracking repayment status of group payments” which is grouped under fundamental economic practice”
Applicant further argues "The claim elements recite improvements to the technical field of processing real-time electronic transactions in order to reduce processing delays by dynamically optimizing settlement timing, aggregating multiple transactions into a single payment instruction, routing payments through intra-network settlement paths that bypasses intermediary processors, synchronizing transaction data across a decentralized blockchain, and continuously retraining the predictive model to improve the efficiency of future transaction processing." (response 21-22)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, “processing real-time electronic transactions in order to reduce processing delays by dynamically optimizing settlement timing, aggregating multiple transactions into a single payment instruction, routing payments through intra-network settlement paths that bypasses intermediary processors, synchronizing transaction data across a decentralized blockchain,” amounts to fundamental economic practice. “Continuously retraining the predictive model to improve the efficiency of future transaction processing” Amounts to mere instruction to apply the exception “ The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1))
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s 101 arguments are unpersuasive.
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, 11, and 17 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents tracking repayment status of group payments which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a transaction processing system, in real- time, a plurality of transactions associated with an account of a registered user;
recording and validating, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the plurality of transactions between the registered user and a merchant in a blockchain, wherein the plurality of transactions are cryptographically secured, timestamped, and added to a decentralized ledger replicated across multiple nodes;
determining, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, that a financial institution associated with the account of the registered user and a financial institution associated with an account of the merchant are within a same network of financial institutions based on processing account information to identify a settlement path that bypasses intermediary acquirer processors
generating, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system using a trained machine learning model and based on the determining, a refined data set based on the plurality of transactions recorded in the blockchain, wherein the trained machine learning model is trained using a combination of one or more stage inputs and known outcomes including one or more stage inputs from any applicable source including any one or more of text, visual representations, data, values, comparisons, and stage outputs;
analyzing, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system using the trained machine learning model, the refined data set to predict a transaction pattern and determine a first preset time period and a second preset time period that reduces a number of individual payment transmissions between the account of the registered user and the settlement account;
determining, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system ,an outstanding amount associated with the plurality of transactions within the first preset time period is within a payment threshold level according to a set of rules applied to the account of the registered user;
aggregating, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the outstanding amount into a single aggregated payment instruction to reduce network communications compared to processing each of the plurality of transactions individually;
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the single aggregated payment instruction for payments for the outstanding amount from a settlement account to an account associated with the merchant via an intra-bank transfer path when the financial institutions are within the same network;;
aggregating, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the transmitted payments based, at least in part, on the second preset time period;
determining, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the transmitted payments within the second preset time period are within the payment threshold level according to a set of rules applied to the account of the registered user;
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, an amount that equals the aggregated transmitted payments from the account associated with the registered user to the settlement account based, at least in part, on the second preset time period;
synchronizing, in real-time, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, transaction information of the plurality of transactions that are cryptographically secured, timestamped, and added to the decentralized ledger replicated across multiple nodes for at least one of: the account associated with the registered user, the account associated with the merchant, and the settlement account;
generating, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, a notification message including a deduction of the transmitted payments and a request to renew or update the payment threshold level based on the data of the generated refined data set, wherein the notification message is configured to be displayed via a user interface element in a user interface of a device associated with the registered user;
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the notification message to the device associated with the registered user; and
re-training, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the trained machine learning model with the predicted aggregated outstanding amount, the first time period, and the aggregated outstanding amount to increase processing efficiency for a future plurality of transactions.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system” and “the trained machine learning model,” “herein the plurality of transactions are cryptographically secured, timestamped, and added to a decentralized ledger replicated across multiple nodes”, “wherein the trained machine learning model is trained using a combination of one or more stage inputs and known outcomes including one or more stage inputs from any applicable source including any one or more of text, visual representations, data, values, comparisons, and stage outputs”, “generating, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, a notification message including a deduction of the transmitted payments and a request to renew or update the payment threshold level based on the data of the generated refined data set, wherein the notification message is configured to be displayed via a user interface element in a user interface of a device associated with the registered user”, “transmitting, by the one or more processors of the transaction processing system, the notification message to the device associated with the registered user” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of tracking repayment status of group payments.
Hence, claim 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 2, and 18, recites the additional elements of “receiving, over a communication network, access credentials of the registered user”, “wherein the access credentials include predefined values, a preset username and password, international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), an electronic serial number, a mobile equipment identity (MEID), one or more identifiers unique to the device, or a combination thereof”, and “authenticating the registered user based, at least in part, on verification of the access credentials.” represents 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. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7, recites “generating a second user interface element in the user interface, wherein the second user interface element includes an alert on the reason for the failure of the at least one transaction.” represents 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. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 10, recites “wherein the user interface element includes a notification...” represents 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. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 12, recites the additional elements of “receive, over a communication network, access credentials of the registered user”, “wherein the access credentials include predefined values, a preset username and password, international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), an electronic serial number, a mobile equipment identity (MEID), one or more identifiers unique to the device, or a combination thereof”, and “authenticate the registered user based, at least in part, on verification of the access credentials.” represents 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. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Caldwell (US 2016/0180466 A1) teaches: historical transaction-based account monitoring
Barrett et al (US 9,818,118 B2) teaches: transaction aggregator.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
October 2, 2026
