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 RCE filed on 6th of November 2025.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-20 were amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 were cancelled.
Claims 21-23 were newly added.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6th of November 2025 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 “…Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 are patent eligible under Step 2A Prong 1 because the claims do not recite an abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Something can still be considered an “abstract idea” even if it isn’t one of the specific examples the courts have previously listed. In Alice, the court stated the “abstract idea category is not closed.” Cases recited in the MPEP are illustrative, not exhaustive. However, here, it is clear that business process such as payment processing can be classified as commercial interactions. Furthermore, it can also be classified as fundamental economic practice.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are nevertheless patent-eligible because claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 recite a technical solution to a technical problem as determined under Step 2A, Prong 2.” Furthermore, applicant states “…The claimed embodiments…improve the functioning of the technical field of facilitate[ing] the payment of using multiple sources of funding locating on various payment rails by providing a technical solution to the technological problem of multiple payment networks which cannot make a payment with each other or when individuals…have multiple payment accounts, which may or may not be on the same payment network, much less with the same financial institution and the individual might collectively have sufficient funds or purchasing power in the aggregate for any given transaction, but might not have sufficient funds in any one account.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This might be a business solution but not a technological solution to a technological problem. The newly added limitations merely recite using “a network hub, a super-network…” to route the payment between a plurality of payment networks. Basically, it is merely using the technology (e.g., supernetwork) as tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, it is not integrated into practical application.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, Applicant argues “…Since the claims contain an inventive concept, the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here again, merely using the technology as tool to implement the abstract idea cannot amount to significantly more.
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
“…receive a payment instruction, the payment instruction specifying at least a recipient of the payment and an amount of the payment; identify one or more payment policies applicable to the payment instruction, wherein a first one of the payment policies specifies that the payment instruction is to be funded with a linked account; fund the payment instruction according to the one or more payment policies; generate a first payment request specifying a network identifier of the linked account, a participant identifier of the linked account, and at least a portion of the amount of the payment; send the first payment request to the network hub configured to received and reconcile the first payment request from the first payment network; 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 network hub configured to receive and reconcile the second payment request from a payment network, the network hub being in data communication with the supernetwork.” 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 that cause the computing device to fund the payment instruction 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 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 first payment network and the second linked account is hosted by the second 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 that cause the computing device to fund the payment instruction further cause the computing device to at least: send the first payment request to the network hub prior to sending the second payment request to the network hub, wherein the difference in time between the first payment request being submitted to the network hub and the second payment request being submitted to the 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 firstpayment 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 payment request comprises a first participant identifier, a logical account identifier, a 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
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 11/29/2025