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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final rejection is in response to the application filed on October 20, 2022, the response to the Restriction/Election filed on April 21, 2025m and the amendments to the claims filed on August 4, 2025.
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 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product Claim 8 and system Claim 21. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving a request from a user system, wherein the request includes user profile data and transaction data including payment data; identifying a plurality of gateways that are available to process the request; selecting, by a machine learning model trained based on a set of sampled historical gateway data, the selected gateway from the plurality of available gateways, wherein during training of the machine learning model, a bias toward a first gateway that receives more transactions but has a lower success rate than other gateways is identified and removed from the set of sampled historical gateway data; receiving real time data comprising encrypted transaction data; reweighting a probability of successful transaction for the selected gateway using the received real time data; communicating the request to the selected gateway; and receiving, from the selected gateway, a response that indicates a success or failure of the request.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Selecting a gateway for processing payment transactions by using historical gateway data recites a commercial or legal interaction/mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The user system and plurality of gateways in Claims 1 and 8 and a processor, memory, user system, and plurality of gateways in Claim 21 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The plurality of gateways and machine learning model in Claims 1, 8, and 21 appears to be just software. It is noted that the specification recites that the plurality of gateways can be hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Claims 8 and 21 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite user system and plurality of gateways in Claims 1 and 8 and a processor, memory, user system, and plurality of gateways in Claim 21 and a plurality of gateways and machine learning model in Claims 1, 8, and 21. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, 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. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
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 exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0018, 0062, 0072, 0073] about implementation 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 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 8, and 21 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 22-26 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 14 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 22-25 further define the machine learning model; Claims 6, 13, and 26 further define the historical gateway data; Claims 7, 14, and 26 further define the user profile data. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-7, 9-14, and 22-26 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-14 and 21-26 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-11) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claims are directed towards selecting a gateway for transaction routing through the use of mathematical equations (paragraph [0045]). In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
8/22/25
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619