DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Application
Applicant's submission filed on April 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 2, 13, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
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, 3-5, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1, a transaction processing method, performed to implement billing processing of purchase transactions, comprising: receiving a transaction message including a plurality of message fields carrying message information for a to-be-processed transaction; based on the message information, creating a transaction feature pricing model-, the model- including the message information, one or more feature variables, one or more feature expressions, one or more rules, and one or more rule unions, wherein the one or more feature variables are pricing elements used in billing processing, wherein the one or more feature variables and the message information are configured with a mapping relationship; each feature expression is defined as a triplet <feature variable, operator, operand>; the one or more rules include corresponding feature expressions connected by logical relationships and have a Boolean result; each rule union is a collection of corresponding rules; determining one or more transaction key values and one or more transaction feature values of the to-be-processed transaction according to transaction information of the to-be-processed transaction; determining a rule union, from the one or more rule unions from the transaction feature pricing model-, corresponding to the to-be-processed transaction according to the one or more transaction key values, the rule union including a plurality of to-be-matched rules; matching the one or more transaction feature values of the to-be-processed transaction sequentially with the plurality of to-be-matched rules in the rule union to obtain a rule matching result of the to-be-processed transaction to determine a processing standard for billing of the to-be-processed transaction; and performing a billing process of the to-be-processed transaction using the processing standard for billing of the to-be-processed transaction determined according to the rule matching result, wherein determining the rule union corresponding to the to-be-processed transaction according to the one or more transaction key values includes: determining one or more rule enforcers corresponding to the to-be-processed transaction according to the one or more transaction key values, wherein each rule enforcer corresponds to one to-be-matched rule, and the one or more rule enforcers are configured to enforce the plurality of to-be-matched rules; and matching the one or more transaction feature values of the to-be-processed transaction sequentially with the plurality of to-be-matched rules in the rule union to obtain the rule matching result of the to-be-processed transaction includes: according to priorities of the one or more rule enforcers, inputting the one or more transaction feature values sequentially into the one or more rule enforcers to perform a matching process; determining the one or more rule enforcers that match the one or more transaction feature values; and determining the processing standard corresponding to the one or more rule enforcers that match the one or more transaction feature values as the rule matching result. (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 3 -: 3, the method according to claim 1, wherein: each rule enforcer includes a rule trigger and at least one expression enforcer; and inputting the one or more transaction feature values sequentially into the one or more rule enforcers to perform the matching process includes: for any one rule enforcer, inputting the one or more transaction feature values into the at least one expression enforcer according to a preset logical relationship, wherein one expression enforcer corresponds to one feature expression; for any one expression enforcer, comparing the one or more transaction feature values with a target value corresponding to each expression enforcer to obtain a comparison result of the expression enforcer; and determining a matching result of the rule enforcer according to the comparison results of all expression enforcers. Claim 4 -: 4, the method according to claim 1, wherein before determining the one or more transaction key values and the one or more transaction feature values of the to-be-processed transaction according to the transaction information of the to-be-processed transaction, the method further comprises: obtaining a to-be-parsed rule union, the to-be-parsed rule union including a plurality of to-be-parsed rules; for any one to-be-parsed rule, determining the rule enforcer corresponding to the to-be-parsed rule according to a logical relationship and a feature expression in the to-be-parsed rule; and according to the rule enforcers corresponding to the plurality of to-be-parsed rules, generating a pool of the rule enforcers corresponding to the to-be-parsed rule union. Claim 5 -: 5, the method according to claim 4, wherein before obtaining the to-be-parsed rule union, the method further comprises: determining one or more feature variables based on the message information; using the one or more feature variables to generate one or more feature expressions; connecting the one or more feature expressions through logical symbols to generate the plurality of to-be-parsed rules; and combining the plurality of to-be-parsed rules of a same service type into the to-be-parsed rule union. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 11 -: 11, comprising ; and ; wherein stores programs to implement billing processing of purchase transactions, and when being executed the programs cause to perform; receiving a transaction... based on the message... wherein the one... determining one... determining a rule... matching the one... performing a billing... wherein determining... determining one... matching the one... according to priorities... determining the... determining the... [id. at 1], (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 12 -: 12, a -readable storage, comprising: -readable instructions to implement billing processing of purchase transactions, wherein when executed the -readable instructions cause to perform a transaction processing method, the method including: receiving a transaction... based on the message... wherein the one... determining one... determining a rule... matching the one... performing a billing... wherein determining... determining one... matching the one... according to priorities... determining the... determining the... [id. at 1], (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 14 -: 14, according to claim 11, wherein: each rule enforcer... inputting the one... for any one rule... for any one expression... determining a matching... [id. at 3], Claim 15 -: 15, according to claim 11, wherein before... obtaining a to-be-parsed... for any one to-be-parsed... according to the... [id. at 4], Claim 16 -: 16, according to claim 15, wherein before... determining one... using the one or... connecting the... combining the plurality... [id. at 5], Claim 18 -: 18, the -readable storage according to claim 12, wherein: each rule enforcer... inputting the one... for any one rule... for any one expression... determining a matching... [id. at 3], Claim 19 -: 19, the -readable storage according to claim 12, wherein before... obtaining a to-be-parsed... for any one to-be-parsed... according to the... [id. at 4], Claim 20 -: 20, the -readable storage according to claim 19, wherein before... determining one... using the one or... connecting the... combining the plurality... [id. at 5], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: transaction data processing method and apparatus as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Mathematical concepts – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as mathematical relationships, Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1 and 11-12 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 11 and is described by the steps of independent claim 12.
Claim 1: Materially regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "data processing", "computer", "server", "online", and "model". However, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "data processing", "computer", "server", "online", and "model" of independent claim 1 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a transaction data processing method, … online purchase transactions, comprising", "receiving a transaction message including … for a to-be-processed transaction", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "wherein the one or more … collection of corresponding rules", "determining one or more transaction … of the to-be-processed transaction", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules", "matching the one or more … the to-be-processed transaction; and", "performing a billing process of … the rule matching result", "wherein determining the rule union … transaction key values includes", "determining one or more rule … of to-be-matched rules; and", "matching the one or more … the to-be-processed transaction includes", "according to priorities of the … perform a matching process", "determining the one or more … transaction feature values; and" and "determining the processing standard corresponding … the rule matching result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Particularly regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 11 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computing device", "at least one processor", "at least one memory", "the memory", "computer", "online", and "model". However, independent claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computing device", "at least one processor", "at least one memory", "the memory", "computer", "online", and "model" of independent claim 11 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computing device, comprising", "at least one processor; and", "at least one memory", "wherein the memory stores computer … one processor to perform", "receiving a transaction message including … for a to-be-processed transaction", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "wherein the one or more … collection of corresponding rules", "determining one or more transaction … of the to-be-processed transaction", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules", "matching the one or more … the to-be-processed transaction; and", "performing a billing process of … the rule matching result", "wherein determining the rule union … transaction key values includes", "determining one or more rule … of to-be-matched rules; and", "matching the one or more … the to-be-processed transaction includes", "according to priorities of the … perform a matching process", "determining the one or more … transaction feature values; and" and "determining the processing standard corresponding … the rule matching result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "wherein the memory stores computer … one processor to perform", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "wherein the memory stores computer … one processor to perform", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Materially with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 12 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer", "medium", "online", "being retrieved", "data processing", and "model". However, independent claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer", "medium", "online", "being retrieved", "data processing", and "model" of independent claim 12 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer-readable storage medium, comprising", "computer-readable instructions to implement billing … method, the method including", "receiving a transaction message including … for a to-be-processed transaction", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "wherein the one or more … collection of corresponding rules", "determining one or more transaction … of the to-be-processed transaction", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules", "matching the one or more … the to-be-processed transaction; and", "performing a billing process of … the rule matching result", "wherein determining the rule union … transaction key values includes", "determining one or more rule … of to-be-matched rules; and", "matching the one or more … the to-be-processed transaction includes", "according to priorities of the … perform a matching process", "determining the one or more … transaction feature values; and" and "determining the processing standard corresponding … the rule matching result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a computer-readable storage medium, comprising", "computer-readable instructions to implement billing … method, the method including", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 11 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a computer-readable storage medium, comprising", "computer-readable instructions to implement billing … method, the method including", "based on the message information, … used in billing processing", "determining a rule union, from … plurality of to-be-matched rules", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 11 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 12 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1 and 11-12 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 3-5, 14-16, and 18-20 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 14, and 18: Dependent claims 3, 14, and 18 add additional method steps of "each rule enforcer includes a rule trigger and at least one expression enforcer; and", "inputting the one or more transaction feature values sequentially into the one or more rule enforcers to perform the matching process includes", "for any one rule enforcer, inputting the one or more transaction feature values into … a preset logical relationship, wherein one expression enforcer corresponds to one feature expression", "for any one expression enforcer, comparing the one or more transaction feature values with … each expression enforcer to obtain a comparison result of the expression enforcer; and", "determining a matching result of the rule enforcer according to the comparison results of all expression enforcers". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 3, 14, and 18 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 3, 14, and 18 are ineligible.
Claims 4, 15, and 19: Dependent claims 4, 15, and 19 add additional method steps of "wherein before determining the one or more transaction key values and the one or … according to the transaction information of the to-be-processed transaction, the method further comprises", "obtaining a to-be-parsed rule union, the to-be-parsed rule union including a plurality of to-be-parsed rules", "for any one to-be-parsed rule, determining the rule enforcer corresponding to the to-be-parsed rule … to a logical relationship and a feature expression in the to-be-parsed rule; and", "according to the rule enforcers corresponding to the plurality of to-be-parsed rules, generating a pool of the rule enforcers corresponding to the to-be-parsed rule union". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 4, 15, and 19 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 3, 14, and 18 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 3, 14, and 18 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 4, 15, and 19 are ineligible.
Claims 5, 16, and 20: Dependent claims 5, 16, and 20 add an additional method step of "wherein before obtaining the to-be-parsed rule union, the method further comprises", "determining one or more feature variables based on the message information", "using the one or more feature variables to generate one or more feature expressions", "connecting the one or more feature expressions through logical symbols to generate the plurality of to-be-parsed rules; and", "combining the plurality of to-be-parsed rules of a same service type into the to-be-parsed rule union". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 5, 16, and 20 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 3, 14, and 18 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 3, 14, and 18 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 5, 16, and 20 are ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted April 15, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed December 17, 2025 (hereinafter "Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the December 17, 2025 Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• Specifically, the Applicant argued:
"[]Applicant respectfully disagrees with the [] Section 101 rejections.
'Regarding the Section 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 12, Applicant respectfully disagrees. [T]hese claims are eligible under Section 101 using both the Step 2A, Prong Two test and Step 2A, Prong One test, especially in view of USPTO's August 4, 2025 Memorandum on "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" ("Memorandum of 8/4/2025"), and Appeal Review Panel's decision on Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins et al., Appeal 2024-000567 ("Ex parte Desjardins").
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 [].
"[N]ot much of the substance discussed in Applicant's previously presented arguments was considered[]. []
"Applicant respectfully disagrees, and submits that the[] reasons are all generalized and without considering the Specification or considering the claim as whole. [T]he Office Action did not consult the Specification with respect to the improvement analysis, indeed no improvement analysis was performed, and no consideration was applied to the substance of the pending claims (i.e., considering the claims as whole) and, thus, these statements are without support, and are contrary to the requirements of Memorandum of 8/4/2025 and Ex parte Desjardins. It appears that these statements can be equally applied to a large number of applications on computer software without considering substance of different claims.
'[] Applicant respectfully submits that, [] the improvements are from the combination of the recited limitations of the pending claims, i.e., an improved process, and not "comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer".
'[T]he limitations recited in the pending claims including operations creating and using complex data model, data enforcers, and other data structures, and having to be completed in a short amount of time in an online environment. [T]he "mental process" is applicable in the Step 2A, Prong One test, not the Step 2A, Prong Two test.
"[S]imilar to Ex parte Desjardins, the Specification clearly describes a specific technical problem, as well as the advantages of the claimed invention in solving such technical problem, i.e., providing technology improvements.
"In the existing technology, the pricing elements are directly derived from the transaction messages. Due to large amount of parameters, the maintenance cost is large, the parameter configuration workload is large, and the calculation time is long.
"In the embodiments of the present disclosure, when performing the billing process of the to-be-processed transaction, the one or more transaction key values and the one or more transaction feature values are determined based on the transaction information of the to-be-processed transaction. Based on the one or more transaction key values, the rule union corresponding to the to-be-processed transaction is determined. The rule union includes the plurality of to-be-matched rules. The one or more transaction feature values of the to-processed transaction are matched with the plurality of to-be-matched rules sequentially to obtain the rule matching result of the to-be-processed transaction. Based on the rule matching result, the billing process is performed on the to-be-processed transaction. In some embodiments, pricing parameters are easy-to-understand feature rules. The pricing parameters are easy to read. A number of pricing parameters are substantially reduced. [A] probability of parameter mismatch or erroneously matched can be reduced, the number of pricing parameters can be reduced, and an efficiency of transaction billing process can be improved.
"[S]imilar to Ex parte Desjardins, the recited invention relies on a database model to implement such improvement. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 13-18).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Regarding the Ex Parte Desjardins court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office ascertains that the legal holdings of Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. While considering in light of the particular facts and the specific holdings of Ex Parte Desjardins in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in the Desjardins precedential decision, in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of "catastrophic forgetting," and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification; indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system; such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the precise facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are substantially unlike the material facts in Ex Parte Desjardins concerning Desjardins's holdings. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks; the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification; specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept); in Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that 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. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task" reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification; accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). Contrastingly, the Applicant's alleged invention involves transaction data processing method and apparatus, and the claims herein examined in the Applicant's pending matter do not entail an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem amounting to an inventive concept, do not confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system, do not reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of "catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity, do not involve a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values, and also do not otherwise involve the same facts as those ruled upon in the precedential Desjardins decision, but rather instead involve materially contradistinctive facts, recite concepts similar to previously identified abstract ideas, and are affirmatively directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the substantive relevant facts in the Applicant's pending matter are materially dissimilar to the facts in Ex Parte Desjardins. Thus, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of Ex Parte Desjardins can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"The final result of the above transaction feature pricing model includes multiple rule unions. Each rule union corresponds to a business type. The number of the one or more feature variables, that is, the pricing elements, can be expanded arbitrarily, and the values of the one or more feature variables can be expanded by increasing the types of operators and operands. The feature rule may contain any number of the feature expressions, and the rule union may refer to any number of the feature rules. [T]he transaction feature pricing model in the embodiments of the present disclosure is substantially scalable, and the elements and the mapping relationships therein can be freely changed.
'[T]he transaction feature pricing model is applied to solve the specific technical problem as stated in the Specification, e.g., "due to large amount of parameters, the maintenance cost is large, the parameter configuration workload is large, and the calculation time is long." [T]he workload of the server is large and the computation time is long at the server while performing billing processing of on-line transactions, as understood by those skilled in the art.
'The improvements as stated in the Specification include that "pricing parameters are easy-to-understand feature rules. The pricing parameters are easy to read. A number of pricing parameters are substantially reduced. [A] probability of parameter mismatch or erroneously matched can be reduced, the number of pricing parameters can be reduced, and an efficiency of transaction billing process can be improved."
"The limitations of amended claim 1 clearly reflect such improvements, providing a solution to such technical problems precisely as described in the Specification.
"[A]mended claim 1 recites [amended claim language].
"[U]sing these data structures, [] to find the processing standard for billing of the to-be-processed transaction determined.
"[W]ith the limitations as recited in claim 1, not all pricing elements are directly derived from the transaction messages. [A] transaction feature pricing model is established, transaction key values and transaction feature values of the to-be-processed transaction are determined, and by matching the transaction feature values of the to-be-processed transaction with the rules in a rule union to obtain a rule matching result of the to-be-processed transaction to determine a processing standard for billing of the to-be-processed transaction. [T]he number of pricing parameters can be reduced, and an efficiency of transaction billing process can be improved. Such improvements are not just manipulating the data itself, but improving the operation of the server, which cannot be performed by human mind.
"[D]etails of determining a rule union from the transaction feature pricing model is further recited in the amended claim 1[.] [T]he matching rules are automatically enforced during the searching process to speed up the computation. Details searching rules in the model (e.g., a database) are also recited in the amended claim 1[.] [T]he specific processing of the claimed invention is implemented, different from any other processes that can be just run by general computers.
"[L]imitations of amended claim 1 clearly reflect the improvements disclosed in the Specification, i.e., Yes to Step 2A, Prong Two test. [I]ndependent claim 1 is eligible under the Step 2A, Prong Two test.
"[W]ith respect to the recited feature of the transaction feature pricing model, such database feature is well considered as an improvement in an existing technology, as indicated in Enfish, LLC v.Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016)."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 18-21).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Concerning the Enfish v. Microsoft court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office determines that the legal holdings of Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In taking into consideration the precise facts and the particular holdings of Enfish v. Microsoft in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Enfish, claim was found to be eligible in Step 2A for product regarding an improved information and storage system using a self-referential data table. However, the precise facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are considerably different from the relevant facts in Enfish v. Microsoft regarding Enfish's holdings. The patentee in Enfish argued that its claimed self-referential table for a computer database was an improvement in an existing technology and thus not directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court agreed with the patentee, based on its interpretation of the claim requiring a four-step algorithm that achieved the improvements. The eligible claims in Enfish recited a self-referential database having two key features: all entity types can be stored in a single table; and the table rows can contain information defining the table columns. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1332, 118 USPQ2d at 1687. The features were not conventional and thus were considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology. In particular, they enabled the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337, 118 USPQ2d at 1690. In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves transaction data processing method and apparatus, and the features in the Applicant's pending claims are well-understood and conventional and/or are not considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the substantive relevant facts in the Applicant's pending matter are materially dissimilar to the facts in Enfish v. Microsoft. Therefore, the Office determines that the legal holdings of Enfish v. Microsoft can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"[I]ndependent claim 1 is also eligible under the Step 2A, Prong one test.
"[A]mended independent claim 1 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. 101. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], p. 21).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments submitted April 15, 2026 at REMARKS p. 21 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses.
'[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims do not recite or require: "complex data model", "data structures", "having to be completed in a short amount of time in an online environment", "database model", or "scalable". The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20060235714 A1 by Adinolfi; Ronald Emmett et al. discloses Enabling flexible scalable delivery of on demand datasets.
USPGPub No. US 20030172059 A1 by Andrei, Mihnea discloses Database system providing methodology for eager and opportunistic property enforcement.
USPGPub No. US 20190172027 A1 by Arora; Ankur et al. discloses PAYMENT FACILITATION SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING PAYMENT FOR A TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20180239507 A1 by Bui; Alin et al. discloses COMPACT PRESENTATION OF AUTOMATICALLY SUMMARIZED INFORMATION ACCORDING TO RULE-BASED GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED INFORMATION.
USPGPub No. US 20170178135 A1 by Bull; John et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NOTIFICATIONS USING A MULTI-PURSE CARD.
USPGPub No. US 20170177809 A1 by Bull; John et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING RESOURCE CONSUMPTION VIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE.
USPGPub No. US 20210166333 A1 by COOK; Ashley discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATABASE MANAGEMENT OF TRANSACTION INFORMATION AND PAYMENT INSTRUCTION DATA.
USPGPub No. US 20060247944 A1 by Calusinski; Edward Patrick JR. et al. discloses Enabling value enhancement of reference data by employing scalable cleansing and evolutionarily tracked source data tags.
USPGPub No. US 20130066771 A1 by Ciurea; Peter et al. discloses Systems and Methods to Configure Data for Diverse Services.
USPAT No. US 11023897 B1 to Cohn; William H. et al. discloses Systems and methods for optimizing transaction conversion rate using measured feedback.
USPAT No. US 10922768 B2 to Cook; Ashley discloses Systems and methods for database management of transaction information and a plurality of payment sources.
USPGPub No. US 20040015579 A1 by Cooper, Geoffrey et al. discloses Method and apparatus for enterprise management.
USPGPub No. US 20050049924 A1 by DeBettencourt, Jason et al. discloses Techniques for use with application monitoring to obtain transaction data.
USPGPub No. US 20070022027 A1 by Gupta; Sandeep et al. discloses Application processing and decision systems and processes.
USPGPub No. US 20080172314 A1 by Hahn-Carlson; Dean W. discloses Financial institution-based transaction processing system and approach.
USPGPub No. US 20210073291 A1 by Hunter; Edward discloses ADAPTIVE PARAMETER TRANSFER FOR LEARNING MODELS.
USPGPub No. US 20170177808 A1 by Irwin; Jennifer et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ALLOCATING RESOURCES USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE.
USPGPub No. US 20200294148 A1 by Jayaram; Arjun et al. discloses ANALYSIS SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20090077131 A1 by Knowles; W. Jeffrey et al. discloses System and Method of Transferring Data Through Transaction Process.
USPGPub No. US 20050097146 A1 by Konstantinou, Alexander V. et al. discloses Methods and systems for autonomously managing a network.
USPAT No. US 10504126 B2 to Kulkarni; Nilesh Vijay et al. discloses System and method of obtaining merchant sales information for marketing or sales teams.
USPGPub No. US 20190332807 A1 by LaFever; Malcolm Gary et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENFORCING PRIVACY-RESPECTFUL, TRUSTED COMMUNICATIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20130282578 A1 by Ma; Jianjie et al. discloses COMPUTER-BASED COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRANSACTION REVIEW.
USPGPub No. US 20090125387 A1 by Mak; Michael Man Ho et al. discloses Electronic Commerce System, Method and Apparatus.
USPGPub No. US 20170264640 A1 by NARAYANASWAMY; Krishna et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF ENFORCING MULTI-PART POLICIES ON DATA-DEFICIENT TRANSACTIONS OF CLOUD COMPUTING SERVICES.
USPGPub No. US 20110029367 A1 by Olson; Ray et al. discloses Systems and Methods to Generate Transactions According to Account Features.
USPGPub No. US 20140222533 A1 by Ovick; Joseph Bjorn et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO USE TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION COMMUNICATIONS TO PROCESS INDIVIDUALIZED OFFERS.
USPGPub No. US 20070094137 A1 by Phillips; Stephen F. et al. discloses Systems and methods for processing transaction data to perform a merchant chargeback.
USPGPub No. US 20190171655 A1 by Psota; James Ryan et al. discloses MTRANSACTION PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS.
USPGPub No. US 20210264423 A1 by Rohlfing; Patricia et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY INITIATING CHARGEBACK TRANSACTIONS FOR DUAL MESSAGE TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20200034448 A1 by Sato; Naoto et al. discloses COMPOSITION OPERATORS FOR SMART CONTRACT.
USPGPub No. US 20200034453 A1 by Sato; Naoto et al. discloses SMART CONTRACT INPUT MAPPING.
USPGPub No. US 20100017325 A1 by Scherpa; Josef et al. discloses MULTIPLE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT TRANSACTION PROCESSING.
USPGPub No. US 20210081557 A1 by THOMSON-WOOD; Reuben Robert et al. discloses METHOD OF MANAGING ACCESS IN A COLLABORATIVE DATA SHARING PLATFORM.
USPAT No. US 8738418 B2 to Winters; Michelle Eng discloses Systems and methods to enhance search data with transaction based data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights