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
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 3rd of March 2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 were amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3rd of March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Step 2A Prong I asks whether a claim recites a judicial exception...The prong does not ask whether a claim involves a patent-ineligible concept.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims expressly recite payment processing operations, including identifying payment policies, generating and sending payment requests, confirming receipt of funds, and generating a later payment request. Thus, the claim recite, rather than merely involve, the abstract idea of processing payment requests.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant asserts that nowhere in claims 1, 8, or 15 are any of these methods of organizing human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims expressly set forth the acts used to process payment requests. Additional detail about how the requests are generated, transmitted, or acted upon does not remove the claimed activity from the category of a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant relies on Example 39 for the proposition that training the neural network merely involves mathematics, while 47 expressly recites mathematical calculations by naming a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analogy is not persuasive. Here, the claim language itself recites the financial transaction steps such as payment policies, payment requests, funding accounts, confirmation of funds, and subsequent requests. The economic activity is therefore expressly recited.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant argues that the Step 2A, Prong Two inquiry is not limited to whether a claim improves computer capabilities because an improvement to any other technology or technical field may also be sufficient.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, improving the ability to conduct cross network payments is an improvement to the payment process unless the claims recite a particular technological improvement to the network or its operation. The present claims do not recite such a specific technological improvement.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant characterizes connecting and facilitating payments between different payment networks as a technical problem and contends that the disclosed supernetwork and use of multiple funding sources provide a technical solution that improves a technical field.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited problem is principally that parties on different payment networks may be unable to complete a payment and that funds may be distributed among accounts. Those are payment processing problems. The claims state that routing and translation occur, but do not recite a particular routing technique, translation algorithm, protocol structure, or other technological mechanism that improves the network itself.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant argues that the claimed supernetwork routing between first and second network hubs, generation of requests containing network and participant identifiers, and translation of requests to a supernetwork compliant message protocol meaningfully integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations are considered as an ordered combination, but they are recited principally as functional tools for carrying out the payment process. The claims require routing and translating payment requests, but do not recite a particular technological manner of performing those functions that improves network technology. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant claim 1 contains language that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. Applicant further argues that the claims contain an inventive concept of a non-conventional arrangement of elements for making payments across different payment networks.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract payment processing steps cannot themselves supply the inventive concept. Merely using computing technology to implement an otherwise abstract idea in a particular arrangement is not sufficient to make the abstract idea significantly more.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Applicant argues that because claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-23 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, the rejections of the dependent claims should also be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the independent claims were found not to be patent eligible under 101. The dependent claims likewise do not alter the patent eligibility analysis because, when considered individually and in combination, their additional limitations merely further define how the payment is funded, timed, identified, or governed by the applicable fee. These limitations do not recite a particular technological improvement or otherwise add significantly more to the abstract idea sufficient to change the 101 analysis.
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 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…identify one or more payment policies applicable to a payment instruction, wherein a first one of the payment policies specifies that the payment instruction is to be funded with a linked account on the second payment network; generate a first payment request specifying a network identifier of the linked account associated with the second payment network, a participant identifier of the linked account, and at least a portion of an amount of the payment; send the first payment request to the first network hub configured to received and reconcile the first payment request from the first payment network, the first network hub being configured to translate the first payment request to a supernetwork compliant message protocol; confirm receipt of at least the portion of the amount of the payment form the linked account; generate a second payment request based at least in part on the payment instruction in response to confirmation of receipt of a least the portion of the amount of the payment from the linked account; and send the second payment request to the first network hub configured to receive and reconcile the second payment request from a payment network, the first network hub being configured to translate the second payment request to the supernetwork compliant message protocol.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions and a fundamental economic practice, namely processing payment requests. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., computing device, memory, processor, network hub, and supernetwork, first payment network, second payment network, participant system). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., computing device, memory, processor, network hub, and supernetwork, first payment network, second payment network, participant system) to receive/send data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., computing device, memory, processor, network hub, and supernetwork, first payment network, second payment network, participant system) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 - (e.g., computing device, memory, processor, network hub, and supernetwork, first payment network, second payment network, participant system) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 8 and 15.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 3, 10, and 17, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define payment process as, “…wherein the linked account is a first linked account; a second one of the payment policies specifies that the payment instruction is to be funded with a second linked account in addition to the first linked account; the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: generate a third payment request after identifying the second one of the payment policies specifying that the payment instruction is to be funded with the second linked account in addition to the first linked account, and in response to confirmation of receipt of at least the portion of the amount of the payment from the first linked account, the third payment request specifying a network identifier of the second linked account, the participant identifier of the second linked account, and a second portion of the amount of the payment; send the third payment request to the first network hub configured to receive and reconcile the third payment request from the first payment network; and confirm receipt of the second portion of the amount of the payment from the second linked account; and wherein the second payment request is then generated in response to confirmation of receipt of the second portion of the amount of the payment from the second linked account.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 11, and 18, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define “the first and the second linked account” as, “…wherein the first linked account is hosted by the second payment network and the second linked account is hosted by third payment network.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 5, 12, and 19, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define payment process as, “…wherein the linked account requires a minimum amount of time to fulfill a funding request; the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: send the first payment request to the first network hub prior to sending the second payment request to the first network hub, wherein the difference in time between the first payment request being submitted to the first network hub and the second payment request being submitted to the first network hub is greater than the minimum amount of time to fulfill the funding request; and confirm receipt of at least the portion of the amount of the payment; and wherein the second payment request is generated in response to confirmation of receipt of at least the portion of the amount of the payment from the linked account.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 6, 13, and 20, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define payment process as, “…wherein the first one of the payment policies specifies the linked account to fund the payment instruction based at least in part on the recipient of the payment; the machine-readable instructions that cause the computing device to fund the payment instruction further cause the computing device to at least: generate the first payment request after identifying the first one of the payment policies specifying the linked account to fund the payment instruction based at least in part on the recipient of the payment; send the first payment request to the network hub configured to receive and reconcile the payment request from the first payment network; and confirm receipt of at least the portion of the amount of the payment; and wherein the second payment request is generated in response to confirmation of receipt of at least the portion of the amount of the payment from the linked account.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 7 and 14, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define “the payment request” as, “…wherein the second payment request comprises a first participant identifier, a logical account identifier, the network identifier, a second participant identifier, and a recipient account identifier.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 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, Matthew 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 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 08/22/2026
Prosecution Insights