DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the amendments submitted by the applicant on January 16, 2026.
Claims 21, 28, and 34 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Michael Anderson.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
In sum, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 21-27), a machine (claims 34-40) and a manufacture (claims 28-33). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
receiving, … , an authorization request for an electronic transaction … , wherein the authorization request includes a transaction value and a plurality of account data of a payment vehicle used to initiate the electronic transaction, wherein the plurality of account data is associated with a payment card … and an issuer …, and wherein the electronic transaction includes a plurality of transaction data;
determining, … , one or more parameters for the electronic transaction based on the transaction value and the plurality of account data;
determining, … , a configurable threshold value for the electronic purchase transaction based on the one or more parameters;
processing, … , the authorization request for an approval of the electronic transaction for the transaction value using the plurality of account data and the plurality of transaction data;
based on determining that the authorization request is declined for the transaction value for insufficient funds, determining,…, a re-submission schedule for re-transmitting the authorization request based on one or more factors associated with the authorization request, the one or more factors including a bank identification number (BIN) and a reason response code (RRC) associated with the authorization request; iteratively re-processing the authorization request according to the re-submission schedule …, the authorization request including at least a portion of the plurality of transaction data of the electronic transaction … wherein the re-processing comprises re-processing the authorization request for an iterative reduction of the transaction value that is less than the transaction value and greater than the configurable threshold value in each re-processed authorization request … until an approval is received from the issuer … or until a reduced transaction value falls below the configurable threshold value; and
transmitting, … , an authorization message … , wherein the authorization message comprises an approved transaction value that is less than the transaction value of the authorization request.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles (submitting a (payment) transaction to an issuer for approval across a payment network) and/or commercial interactions (sales activity or behavior) (e.g., Here - processing a (payment) transaction authorization request for a purchase/sale transaction between a merchant and an account holder of an issuer (issuer payment account), including consideration of account information of the account holder, and including approval of the transaction authorization request after determining the payment account has insufficient funds for the transaction by iteratively re-processing the authorization request for the transaction until it is approved or until a reduced transaction value falls below the configurable threshold value, and then sending an authorization message that approves the transaction).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “payment processing computing system,” a “processor,” an “issuer processor,” a “payment card network,” a “payment network”, a “merchant POS device,” and a “memory” or a “computer readable medium” storing executable instructions to accomplish various functions, do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer network, a payment or payment card network or a communication network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer network, a payment or payment card network or a communication network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 22-24, 29-31 and 35-37 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring additional steps of iteratively reducing the transaction value (which may be a percentage of the transaction value) by an incremental percentage value or by a unit value and iteratively re-processing the authorization request for the electronic transaction based on the reduced incremental percentage or the reduced unit value, where these additional steps are simply refining the abstract idea (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application) or an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept).
Claims 25, 32 and 38 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring the receipt of the authorization request from the issuer and updating historical data of transaction/payment processing results, and do not add any element or feature that provides a technological solution (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application) or an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept).
Claims 26, 33 and 39 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring an indication of an approved authorization request be sent to a merchant when the issuer approves the authorization request, and do not add any element or feature that provides a technological solution (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application) or an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept).
Claims 27 and 40 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the electronic transaction is one of a series of recurring transactions of the transaction value, and do not add any element or feature that provides a technological solution (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application) or an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept). Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the applicant’s arguments, on pages 12–13, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because “the disclosed system and methods are necessarily rooted in computer technology, in particular, in the realm of computer networks (e.g., payment networks)” by virtue of “iteratively re-processing the authorization request according to the re-submission schedule across a payment network…for an iterative reduction of the transaction value,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that a claim is performed over a computer network does not, by itself, remove the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to guaranteeing commercial transactions performed over a computer network held abstract); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (use of the Internet did not transform otherwise abstract claims). The core of the claims remains a business method for managing declined payment authorizations — determining a retry schedule and iteratively reducing transaction amounts until approval. The payment network is merely the environment in which this known commercial practice is applied. Applicant’s reliance on the phrase “necessarily rooted in computer technology” appears to invoke DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014); however, DDR Holdings is distinguishable because in DDR, the claims addressed a problem specifically arising in computer networks with a solution having no pre-computer analog. Here, the problem of recovering partial payment after a decline is a commercial problem with well-known pre-computer analogs (e.g., a merchant negotiating a reduced payment amount; retrying transactions until approved, etc). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1 — specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices / commercial interactions).
With respect to the applicant’s arguments, on pages 13–15, that even if the claims recite a judicial exception, the additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application — specifically citing the elements of receiving an authorization request from a POS device, processing across a payment network, determining a re-submission schedule based on BIN and RRC, and iteratively re-processing at reduced values — the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The elements Applicant identifies do not constitute integration into a practical application.. the abstract idea is merely data gathering and outputting of results. Second, the “payment processing computing system,” “POS device,” “payment network,” and “issuer processor” are recited at a high level of generality and perform their conventional, ordinary functions, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply it” on generic computing components under MPEP § 2106.05(f). Third, references to “payment network,” “payment card network,” and “recurring electronic transactions” are field-of-use limitations under MPEP § 2106.05(h) that merely confine the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Fourth, and critically, Applicant’s emphasis on “determining a re-submission schedule based on BIN and RRC” and “iteratively re-processing for an iterative reduction of the transaction value” does not identify additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Rather, these limitations are the abstract business-logic steps themselves. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or payment processing system, a particular machine beyond generic hardware, a transformation of an article, or any other meaningful limitation.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights