DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-23 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-23 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(a), the amendment overcomes the rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that “the claims do not recite an abstract idea” because the amended claims “improve at least the functioning of the hybrid blockchain.” by the newly amended claim limitation “storing. information about a hierarchical relationship between the sub-merchant and the payment facilitator in a database external to the hybrid blockchain based on the on-boarding decision" and "granting, access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the blockchain shared ledger to the first system based on the on-boarding decision published in the blockchain shared ledger and based on the stored hierarchical relationship,". The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, by one or more ... and from a ... over an..., a plurality of sub-merchant data, a plurality of current transaction data associated with a ..., and a plurality of payment facilitator data associated with the ...; writing, by the one or more... the plurality of sub-merchant data, the plurality of current transaction data, and the plurality of payment facilitator data to a first block in a ...shared ledger distributed in a ..., wherein the first block associated with a timestamp and a unique identifier hash in the ...; determining, by the one or more ..., a plurality of parameters for processing transactions of the ... using the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data; determining, by the one or more ..., an on-boarding decision based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the on-boarding decision indicates that authorization requests are to be accepted from the ... for processing; storing, by the one or more ..., information about a hierarchical relationship between the ... and the ... in a ... external to the hybrid ... based on the on-boarding decision; publishing, by the one or more ..., the on-boarding decision to a second block in the ...; granting, by the one or more ..., access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the ... to the ... based on the on-boarding decision published in the ... and based on the stored hierarchical relationship; determining, by the one or more..., a score based on comparing the plurality of sub-merchant data, the plurality of current transaction data, and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the first block in the ... to one or more attributes of an additional product or service associated with the...; and generating and transmitting, by the one or more... an offer for the additional product or service to a display of ... associated with the ... based on the score; receiving, by the one or more ..., a payment vehicle authorization request from the ...; and transmitting, by the ... over the ..., the payment vehicle authorization request to the ... for processing based on the on-boarding decision published in the second block in the...shared ledger.”, which is commercial and legal interaction within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for conducting onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, payment processing system, acquirer processor, processors, first system, electronic network, sub-merchant, peer-to-peer network, payment facilitator, database, electronic device, data storage device and non-transitory machine-readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to the amended claim limitation “storing. information about a hierarchical relationship between the sub-merchant and the payment facilitator in a database external to the hybrid blockchain based on the on-boarding decision", it discloses that storing the payment facilitator and its sub-merchant data in a hybrid blockchain. It applies the blockchain technology to perform the abstract idea. However, it does not improve blockchain technology nor functioning of the computer.
With respect to the amended claim limitation "granting, access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the blockchain shared ledger to the first system based on the on-boarding decision published in the blockchain shared ledger and based on the stored hierarchical relationship,", it discloses granting access to the payment facilitator and its sub-merchant data that are stored on the blockchain. It does not improve blockchain technology nor functioning of the computer.
The applicant further argues that “the amended claims do recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application,” because limitations such as “determining, by the one or more processors, an on-boarding decision based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the on-boarding decision indicates that authorization requests are to be accepted from the sub-merchant for processing, storing, by the one or more processors, information about a hierarchical relationship between the sub-merchant and the payment facilitator in a database external to the hybrid blockchain based on the onboarding decision, publishing, by the one or more processors, the on-boarding decision to a second block in the blockchain shared ledger, and granting, by the one or more processors, access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the blockchain shared ledger to the first system based on the onboarding decision published in the blockchain shared ledger and based on the stored hierarchical relationship.;”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of the claims such as the use of blockchain, payment processing system, acquirer processor, processors, first system, electronic network, sub-merchant, peer-to-peer network, payment facilitator, database, electronic device, data storage device and non-transitory machine-readable medium merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. It is not any improvement to functioning of a computer, technology, or any technical field. See the detail analysis on pages 6-8 of this office action.
With respect to limitation “determining, by the one or more processors, an on-boarding decision based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the on-boarding decision indicates that authorization requests are to be accepted from the sub-merchant for processing;”, utilizing computer to determine an on-boarding decision based on data. It uses computer to automate the process of identifying decision based on given data. It does not improve any functioning of the computer nor any technical field.
With respect to claim limitation “storing. information about a hierarchical relationship between the sub-merchant and the payment facilitator in a database external to the hybrid blockchain based on the on-boarding decision", it discloses storing the payment facilitator and its sub-merchant data on a hybrid blockchain. It applies the blockchain technology to perform the abstract idea. However, it does not improve blockchain technology nor functioning of the computer.
With respect to limitation “publishing, by the one or more processors, the on-boarding decision to a second block in the blockchain shared ledger;”, it uses computer to record on-boarding decision on the blockchain. Again, It applies the blockchain technology to perform the abstract idea. However, it does not improve blockchain technology nor functioning of the computer.
With respect to the amended claim limitation "granting, access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the blockchain shared ledger to the first system based on the on-boarding decision published in the blockchain shared ledger and based on the stored hierarchical relationship,", it discloses granting access to the payment facilitator and its sub-merchant data that are stored on the blockchain. It does not improve blockchain technology nor functioning of the computer.
Therefore, amended claims do not recite additional elements that integrated the abstract ideal into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The rejection is maintained.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-5, 7 and 21 are directed to a method, claims 8-12, 14 and 22 are directed to a system, and claims 15-18, 20 and 23 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, by one or more ... and from a ... over an..., a plurality of sub-merchant data, a plurality of current transaction data associated with a ..., and a plurality of payment facilitator data associated with the ...; writing, by the one or more... the plurality of sub-merchant data, the plurality of current transaction data, and the plurality of payment facilitator data to a first block in a ...shared ledger distributed in a ..., wherein the first block associated with a timestamp and a unique identifier hash in the ...; determining, by the one or more ..., a plurality of parameters for processing transactions of the ... using the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data; determining, by the one or more ..., an on-boarding decision based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the on-boarding decision indicates that authorization requests are to be accepted from the ... for processing; storing, by the one or more ..., information about a hierarchical relationship between the ... and the ... in a ... external to the hybrid ... based on the on-boarding decision; publishing, by the one or more ..., the on-boarding decision to a second block in the ...; granting, by the one or more ..., access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the ... to the ... based on the on-boarding decision published in the ... and based on the stored hierarchical relationship; determining, by the one or more..., a score based on comparing the plurality of sub-merchant data, the plurality of current transaction data, and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the first block in the ... to one or more attributes of an additional product or service associated with the...; and generating and transmitting, by the one or more... an offer for the additional product or service to a display of ... associated with the ... based on the score; receiving, by the one or more ..., a payment vehicle authorization request from the ...; and transmitting, by the ... over the ..., the payment vehicle authorization request to the ... for processing based on the on-boarding decision published in the second block in the...shared ledger.”, which is commercial and legal interaction within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for conducting onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, payment processing system, acquirer processor, processors, first system, electronic network, sub-merchant, peer-to-peer network, payment facilitator, database, electronic device, data storage device and non-transitory machine-readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using blockchain, payment processing system, acquirer processor, processors, first system, electronic network, sub-merchant, peer-to-peer network, payment facilitator, database, electronic device, data storage device and non-transitory machine-readable medium steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 describe first system. Dependent claims 3-4, 10-11, 17 and 21-23 describe onboarding decision. Dependent claims 5, 12 and 18 describe obtaining sub-merchant data. Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 describe storing the merchant and payment facilitator information in a non-relational database. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, payment processing system, acquirer processor, processors, first system, electronic network, sub-merchant, peer-to-peer network, payment facilitator, database, electronic device, data storage device and non-transitory machine-readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of performing onboarding sub-merchant and offering additional product and services. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of blockchain, payment processing system, acquirer processor, processors, first system, electronic network, sub-merchant, peer-to-peer network, payment facilitator, database, electronic device, data storage device and non-transitory machine-readable medium as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a) set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of record is US20170169404A1 (“Mudulodu et al.”). Mudulodu et al. teaches receiving, by one or more processors and from a first system over an electronic network, a plurality of sub-merchant data, a plurality of current transaction data associated with a sub-merchant, and a plurality of payment facilitator data associated with the sub-merchant; (Fig. 2 steps 202, 204, 206, 208 and 210; ¶0002, ¶0004 and ¶¶0023-27); writing, by the one or more processors, the plurality of sub-merchant data, the plurality of current transaction data, and the plurality of payment facilitator data to a first block in a ledger; (Fig,. 1 item 122; ¶0015); determining, by the one or more processors, a plurality of parameters for processing transactions of the sub-merchant using the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data; (Fig. 2 step 210, 212, 214 and 216; ¶¶0027-30); granting, by the one or more processors, access to the plurality of sub-merchant data and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the ledger to the first system based on the on-boarding decision published in the ledger and based on the stored hierarchical relationship; (Fig,. 1 item 122; ¶0015), receiving, by the one or more processors, a payment vehicle authorization request from the sub-merchant; and (¶0016); transmitting, by the one or more processors over the electronic network, the payment vehicle authorization request to the acquirer processor for processing based on the on-boarding decision published in the second block in the ledger. (¶0016) However, the prior art does not teach, the following: wherein a ledger is blockchain shared ledger distributed in a peer-to-peer network, wherein the first block associated with a timestamp and a unique identifier hash in the blockchain shared ledger; determining, by the one or more processors, an on-boarding decision based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the on-boarding decision indicates that authorization requests are to be accepted from the sub-merchant for processing; storing, by the one or more processors, information about a hierarchical relationship between the sub-merchant and the payment facilitator in a database external to the hybrid blockchain based on the on-boarding decision; (Fig. 1 item 122; ¶0015) publishing, by the one or more processors, the on-boarding decision to a second block in the blockchain shared ledger; determining, by the one or more processors, a score based on comparing the plurality of sub-merchant data, the plurality of current transaction data, and the plurality of payment facilitator data in the first block in the blockchain shared ledger to one or more attributes of an additional product or service associated with the first system; generating and transmitting, by the one or more processors, an offer for the additional product or service to a display of an electronic device associated with the sub-merchant based on the score;
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US7103570B1 (“Morea et al.”) discloses a merchant account activation system that includes an Internet server that works in conjunction with a master account file operating on a mainframe computer and an expert computer system that is used to configure point-of-sale terminals. Many of the steps of the activation procedure are performed by a merchant activation routine running on the Internet server, which allows a merchant to apply for a merchant account during an on-line session conducted with the Internet server. The merchant activation routine obtains application information from the applicant during an on-line session, conducts a credit check and "scores" the application as a credit risk during the on-line session.
US20190272537A1 (“Miller et al.”) discloses a system and method for use of distributed ledger technology for recording and utilizing credit account transaction information.
US10963846B1 (“Cunliffe et al.”) discloses techniques for automated integration between services provided by a service provider.
US20200074461A1 (“DeRosa-Grund”) discloses a transaction platform including at least one or more public, public-private and/or private distributed ledgers or blockchains that together enable the secure effectuation and recordation of one or more transactions while maintaining transaction party confidentiality. The private distributed ledgers or blockchains are able to store, maintain and provide information about the parties related to the transactions which the distributed blockchains or databases are able to utilize in order to securely and quickly validate, execute and record the transactions in a manner that is GDPR and other data privacy law complaint.
US20140279533A1 (“Hamilton et al.”) discloses methods and systems for providing a real-time application programming interface for merchant enrollment and underwriting. In one embodiment, a process is disclosed that may include receiving, from a first computing device, a request for applying for the merchant financial account for a merchant applicant. The request may also include verifying the information associated with the merchant applicant and providing, via the first computing device, at least one question with a plurality of answer choices to the merchant applicant if the merchant applicant information associated with the applicant is verified. In one aspect, the method may include receiving an answer choice to the at least one question from the merchant applicant via the first computing device and validating the received answer choice. If the answer choice is validated, the method may include activating the first computing device and authenticating the merchant applicant for the merchant financial account.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights