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 Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on December 11, 2025.
• Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 17-18, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for obtaining transaction data and extracting features from the transaction data to determine whether there is deficient transaction data. The Specification at [0003] states: “Businesses, merchants, consumers, financial entities, and/or government entities may perform electronic fund transfers, payment processing (e.g., e-commerce payments), capital management, etc. domestically and internationally over various payment networks. Situations may arise where a single individual or entity needs to process a large number of transactions (i.e., from a single sender account to many recipient accounts). Although systems and methods exist today for processing a batch payment, these conventional solutions are not optimized for multi-currency transactions (i.e., those batch transactions involving two or more currency types) and become increasingly burdensome and time-consuming if the scope of the batch payment is very large (e.g., for batch payments containing hundreds of transactions, etc.).” The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the processing electronic funds transfers, which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 18-19, that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). Here, the claims recite one or more computer readable media storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations; generating a user interface; generating, by one or more processors of the real-time transaction system, a batch processing user interface for display on an information handling user device associated with the real-time transaction system; providing, by the one or more processors, the batch processing user interface to the information handling user device; a selection to import a transaction file; an application platform of the real-time transaction system; data stored in a database; generate a display; an imports results page; providing, by the one or more processors, the display including the imports result page to the information handling user device for display on the batch processing user interface; an interactive element of the import summary display in the batch processing user interface comprising a selection to display; displaying, by the one or more processors, a popup display element on the information handling user device overtop the imports results page on the batch processing user interface such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions and user interface receiving input and outputting data. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0003] and [0026]-[0028], describing improving the process of electronic funds processing for batches of transactions.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 8), and an apparatus (claim 15). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in part, a method, a system, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a method of executing a batch of electronic transactions by a real-time transaction system, the method comprising: capturing a user interaction, the user interaction comprising a selection to import; receiving, the transaction file according to the user interaction, wherein the transaction file comprises a plurality of transaction requests; extracting, one or more transaction features from each transaction request of the plurality of transaction requests; generating a placeholder transaction request for each transaction request in the transaction file, wherein each placeholder transaction request corresponds to one of the plurality of transaction requests in a batch record table, and wherein a placeholder transaction request is not generated for a deficient transaction request having one or more deficiencies in the one or more transaction features; determining that at least one subset of the plurality of transaction requests is deficient based on analyzing the one or more transaction features extracted from each transaction request of the transaction file received and based on placeholder transactions not being generated in the batch record table for at least one subset of the plurality of transaction requests; generating an indication of a results based on determining that the at least one subset of the plurality of transaction requests is deficient, wherein the indication of the result includes an imports results comprising an import summary display; capturing a second user interaction with an element to display a number associated with a failed number of transaction requests imported; displaying, the number of the failed number of transaction requests imported including a listing of the at least one subset of the plurality of transaction requests that is deficient and at least one deficient transaction feature for each listed transaction request; and executing a transaction process for each of the plurality of transaction requests not include in the at least one subset. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for obtaining transaction data and extracting features from the transaction data to determine whether there is deficient transaction data, which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of an import process and an application platform do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of one or more computer readable media storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations; generating a user interface; generating, by one or more processors of the real-time transaction system, a batch processing user interface for display on an information handling user device associated with the real-time transaction system; providing, by the one or more processors, the batch processing user interface to the information handling user device; a selection to import a transaction file; an application platform of the real-time transaction system; data stored in a database; generate a display; an imports results page; providing, by the one or more processors, the display including the imports result page to the information handling user device for display on the batch processing user interface; an interactive element of the import summary display in the batch processing user interface comprising a selection to display; displaying, by the one or more processors, a popup display element on the information handling user device overtop the imports results page on the batch processing user interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of facilitating an import process, identifying deficiencies, and presenting a result) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. Furthermore, dependent claims 4 and 11 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070282724 A1 (“Barnes”) discloses enabling the client and the financial institution to automate reconciliation of deposit data against a borrowing base, the method comprising receiving cash application data from the client, receiving deposit data from the client and matching the deposit data to a client ledger, the deposit data including a deposit amount, identifying the client and identifying a client bank account, the client ledger including draws, cash applications and invoices, denoting the deposit amount as unapplied cash, determining a minimum immediate refund amount, the refund amount corresponding to non-funded cash, matching the deposit amount to cash applications and creating cash applications against the invoices, the cash application corresponding to the deposit amount, and applying a balance remaining from the deposit amount to at least one draw and/or recovery account, wherein the balance is applied to the oldest draw and/or recovery account available.
US 20110225127 A1 (“Abar”) discloses an investment portfolio management facility is disclosed. The facility is a computerized system for providing data integrity for investment portfolios. When an entry is made, the entry is checked for consistency with previously-made entries and with rules for portfolio entries. If an error is detected, the system alerts users to the error and also provides signals to check for further errors. The user may be made aware of the error or errors through a user interface.
US 20230334592 A1 (“Johari”) discloses data reconciliation and task processing implemented in a dashboard interface. A dashboard interface is displayed having a number of tabs that correspond to categorical processing steps for the task, vertically arranged along an edge of the dashboard. The number of tabs include at least an overview tab, a configuration tab, a reconciliation tab, and a transaction tab. A number of selectable parameters are retrieved selected from the configuration tab. Data is aggregated and processed across multiple database tables according to the selected parameters. The aggregated data is displayed on the dashboard interface as a series of cards arranged horizontally according to a logical sequence of user interactions. At least one card includes a visualization of the aggregated data that is displayed in a progressive format that enables a user to drill-down into data details of a selected segment of the visualization.
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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694