CTNF 17/889,234 CTNF 90921 DETAILED ACTION 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 17, 20, and 22. Applicant added claim 27. Applicant cancelled claims 16 and 25. Applicant previously cancelled claims 8, 11, 15, 19, and 21. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 20, 22- 24, 26, and 27 are pending and have been examined. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 101 Rejections Examiner initially rejected claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20, and 22-26 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant argued that the claims “do not recite”/”are not directed” to an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges the claims do not recite an abstract idea and provides no analysis as to why the claims are not directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Merely having a different opinion as to how to describe the thrust of the claims does not change what the claims actually recite. Examiner identified the limitations which define the abstract idea and how they are directed to commercial/legal interactions. In view of the specification the claims recited the exchange of data related to payments. Since they are a commercial/legal interactions the claims fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore constitute an abstract idea (and thus a judicial exception). Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The identified language is merely the computer implementation of the abstract idea as well as limitations identified as part of the abstract idea.. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (exchanging data related to a payment) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. The newly amended claims merely improve the abstract idea being performed as opposed to improving technology. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application. Applicant argued its claims are similar to those in Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. In this case the claims were found to be eligible because in those cases recited technical improvement to machine-learning systems themselves. For example in Desjardins the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. In Applicant’s claims there is no similar improvement to how the machine learning/AI model functions. Applicant merely notes the utility of the claims which in and of itself is not a technical improvement. Applicant argued that they recite a combination of steps which recite something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As noted above Applicant is not improving how technology functions. Applicant is not presenting a technical solution but rather a business solution to a business problem. Applicant is not addressing “the limited content of temporally delayed messages” on any technical level. Applicant’s amendments do not amount to any sort of eligible subject matter but rather merely further describe the technological environment which implements the abstract business solution. Outside of the abstract idea, there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Examiner provided evidence that these are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations. Examiner has provided the proper evidence as required by Berkheimer. Examiner maintains this rejection . 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 1-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 20, 22- 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as initiating data exchange associated with a payment. Step 1 Analysis Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 13-19), machine (claims 1-12 and 21-27), and manufacture/product (claim 20). Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite the abstract idea/limitations of: receive a message associated with a first exchange of data initiated between a first counterparty and a second counterparty during a first temporal interval, the message comprising elements of message data disposed within corresponding message fields that are structured in accordance with a standardized protocol, and the elements of message data characterizing (i) the first data exchange and (ii) a second exchange of data involving the first and second counterparties during a second temporal interval disposed subsequent to the first temporal interval; obtain mapping data associated with the standardized protocol, the mapping data identifying each of the message fields and corresponding ones of the elements of message data; perform operations, in real-time upon receipt of the message, that obtain the elements of message data from corresponding ones of the message fields based on the mapping data, the elements of message data comprising at least one first parameter value that characterizes the first data exchange and information characterizing the second data exchange; determine at least one second parameter value of the second data exchange, transmit notification data, the notification data comprising the at least one first parameter value, the at least one second parameter value and content associated with the first data exchange and the second data exchange, the notification data being associated with an offer to initiate the second data exchange during the second temporal interval in accordance with the at least one parameter value, present the content within an interface; receive response data and determine that the response data is associated with an acceptance of the offer based on the response data; and based on the determination that the response data is associated with the acceptance of the offer, perform operations in real-time upon receipt of the message, that execute the first data exchange based on the at least one first parameter value and that transmit first confirmation data associated with the executed first data exchange, initiate the second data exchange during the second temporal interval based on the first confirmation data. As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims recite the exchange of data/information relating to a financial transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas; and thus it recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a communications interface, a memory, instructions, and at least one processor, a device, digital content, a digital interface, a computing system, a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a first communication channel, a second communication channel, an application program, a standardized data-exchange protocol; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of: receive a message associated with a real-time payment, transmit notification data, present the content within an interface; transmit first confirmation data associated with the real-time payment, receive response data initiate the data exchange. amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Step 2B Analysis The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a communications interface, a memory, instructions, and at least one processor, a device, digital content, a digital interface, a computing system, a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a standardized data-exchange protocol; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a vehicle with generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations of: receive a message associated with a real-time payment, transmit notification data, present the content within an interface; transmit first confirmation data associated with the real-time payment, receive response data initiate the data exchange. amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0023-0028], [0115-0126], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible. Dependent Claims Analysis As for dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9, 22-24, and 27 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 13. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 9, 22-24 and 27 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above. As for dependent claims 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21 and 26 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 13. In addition, the recite the additional elements of receive the response data; receive response data; transmit the first confirmation data; transmit second confirmation data indicative of the acceptance of the offer; obtain mapping data; store the elements of message data; obtain, based on the mapping data, offer information; obtain at least one of the first identifier, the second identifier, or the parameter value of the least one of the real-time payment or the data exchange; receive the message; transmit the notification data; transmit the confirmation data; This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and cases cited therein). These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21 and 26 are considered ineligible subject matter. Thus, the dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22- 24, 26, and 27 are not patent-eligible either. Examiner Request The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance. Prior Art There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT. 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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. /MICHAEL J. WARDEN/ Examiner Art Unit 3694 /RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 2 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 3 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 4 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 5 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 6 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 7 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 8 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/889,234 Page 9 Art Unit: 3694
Prosecution Insights