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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed February 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination in this case. Claims 1, 4, 8, 15, and 16, are currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding the claims, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter.
We note, firstly, that Applicant argues that the claims do not recite “carrying out a transaction”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Please note the following definition –
Transaction noun - a communicative action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other
an action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other (Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com (9 April 2026).
Applicant specifically argues that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity, nor are they directed to commercial or legal interactions.
Note that in the instant case, the claims are reciting verifying information before carrying out a transaction. Specifically, the claims recite receiving a request to join a network, obtaining and authenticating information regarding the request, generating registration data, and registering the requester, which is described as a commercial or legal interaction/ transaction and is therefore grouped within the within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106). In other words, when you decide whether to allow someone to use your payment facility, you are engaging in a legal or commercial interaction, which is a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant further argues, that the claims recite an integration into a practical application as under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that the additional elements of the claims such as the computing device, network, and super network, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See, e.g., par 19 of the PgPub, where “payment network 100 can have a number of components, such as one or more participant systems 103 (e.g., participant system 103 a, participant system 103 b, participant system 103 c, participant system 103 d, etc.) and a network hub” and (par 20) “network hub 106 can store various data to allow it to facilitate payments from one network participant 103 to another network participant 103, as well as route payments from a network participant 103 of the payment network 100 to another network participant”.
Applicant argues, that the claims recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that the additional element(s) of using one or more computing device, network, and super network to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of verifying information before carrying out a transaction. In other words, the claims merely recite the concept of receiving a request to join a network, obtaining and authenticating information regarding the request, generating registration data, registering the requester, and determining whether an update to the data is necessary.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 15, as currently amended, that Murphy does not disclose obtain(ing) network information associated with the payment network, the network information including at least certificate data, network interface configuration data, and protocol data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to Murphy at, e.g., par 89 “embodiments of the invention the PPI may be, but not be limited to, a MFD to a POS, a MFD to a POS which is a FSC, a feature of a software or computer program, a network, a server, a mobile device, an application on a PED, device or FED, a feature or function of an application on a PED, device or FED, a website, a feature of a PED, Device, or FED, a MFD of a vehicle, be associated with a vehicle or user, be an application associated with an operating system of a vehicle, be a dedicated function of an operating system of a vehicle, or be a PED, device, or FED”; par 135-138 “acquisition of requesting device identity acquisition together with associated geolocation data . . .”; par 205 “authentication process is based upon a geolocation process exploiting one or more methodologies such as GPS , wireless triangulation etc.”; par 76 “geolocation methods can include Internet and computer geolocation by associating a geographic location with the Internet Protocol (IP) address, MAC address, RFID, Wi-Fi access node etc. IP address location data can include information such as country, region, city, postal/zip code, latitude, longitude and time zone. Geolocation data may be defined in international standards such as ISO/IEC 19762-5:2008 or as defined by other standards or proprietary formats”; par 91 “User Authentication Hardware” (UAH) as used herein refers to, but is not limited, to any sensor, interface, PED, device, FED, MFD, etc. which obtains information with respect to authenticating the user upon the system to which the UAH is connected or associated”; par 58 “u ser may be associated with biometric data which may be, but not limited to, monitored, acquired, stored, transmitted, processed and analyzed either locally or remotely to the user. A user may also be associated through one or more accounts and/or profiles with one or more of a service provider, third party provider, enterprise, social network, social media etc. via a dashboard, web service, website, software plug-in, software application, and graphical user interface”.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 15, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses or suggests cause the registration data to be written to a supernetwork registry accessible to the plurality of different payment networks registered to participate in the supernetwork.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Murphy discloses causing the registration data to be written to a network registry. (par 89 “connect/serve the FI to a payment processing network, connect/serve the FI to a network-based server which will house the FI in a database, connect/serve the FI to a POS, connect/serve the FI to a network-based server in order to house the FI in a database alongside an identifier which can identifier the owner for the FI and serve the FI and process payments over a network”; also par 135-138, 205)
Adams discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, a supernetwork at least facilitating communication and payment between a plurality of different payment networks registered to the supernetwork. (par 1, 19, 39, 40)
It would be obvious to combine the Supernetwork of Adams with Murphy in order to make the exchange of payments and services smoother and more user friendly and to improve the lives of the users. (Adams, par 1, 35)
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 15, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses or suggests determining that the registration data associated with the payment network requires an update based at least in part on the network status.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to Murphy at par 143 “Once a determination has been made that the user has moved a predetermined distance away from a previously stored location in step 345 the process flow 300 executes an updating routine with a remote server”, where location is an element of network status.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1nand 15, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-20 –
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, while claims 8-14 are directed to a method, and claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite verifying information in preparation for carrying out a transaction. Specifically, the claims recite receiving a request to join a network, obtaining and authenticating information regarding the request, generating registration data, registering the requester, and if necessary, updating the registration, which is described a commercial or legal interaction/ transaction and is therefore grouped within the within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as the computing device, network, and super network, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the computing device, network, and super network perform the steps or functions of request to join a network, obtaining and authenticating information regarding the request, generating registration data, registering the requester, and if necessary, updating the registration. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of using one or more computing device, network, and super network to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of verifying information in preparation for carrying out a transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the computing device, network, and super network perform the steps or functions of receiving a request to join a network, obtaining and authenticating information regarding the request, generating registration data, registering the requester, and if necessary, updating the registration. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of receiving a request to join a network, obtaining and authenticating information regarding the request, generating registration data, and registering the requester. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the abstract idea of verifying information before carrying out a transaction. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2020/0005295) in view of Adams et al (US 2021/0042799), and in view of Kim et al (US 2020/0267215).
Regarding claims 1, and 15 -
Murphy discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; (fig2) and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory wherein when executed by the processor, the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device (fig2) to at least:
receive a request for a payment network to join another network; (fig7, par 192-193)
obtain network information associated with the payment network, the network information including at least certificate data, network interface configuration data, and protocol data; (par 89, 135-138, 205)
authenticate the payment network based at least in part on the network information; (par 205)
generate registration data based at least in part on the network information; (par 205)
cause the registration data to be written to a network registry accessible to the plurality of different payment networks registered to participate in the network. (par 89, 135-138, 205)
and
determine that the registration data associated with the payment network requires an update based at least in part on the network status. (par 143 “Once a determination has been made that the user has moved a predetermined distance away from a previously stored location in step 345 the process flow 300 executes an updating routine with a remote server”, where location is an element of network status)
Adams discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, a supernetwork at least facilitating communication and payment between a plurality of different payment networks registered to the supernetwork. (par 1, 19, 39, 40)
It would be obvious to combine the Supernetwork of Adams with Murphy in order to make the exchange of payments and services smoother and more user-friendly and to improve the lives of the users. (Adams, par 1, 35)
Kim discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, evaluate a network status of the payment network, the network status being based at least in part on a monitored transaction processing time; (par 7-8 “blockchain state monitor that calculates an estimated time of transaction processing completion according to a transaction cost by using state information about the blockchain network”, 33-36 “blockchain state monitor 132 calculates an estimated time of transaction processing completion according to a transaction cost by using the state information about the blockchain network”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Murphy with Kim in order to better monitor transactions.
Regarding claim 3 –
Murphy discloses authenticating the payment network comprises authenticating at least one of a certificate or a token included in the certificate data of the network information.(par 102)
Regarding claim 5 –
Murphy discloses wherein the network registry is stored in a distributed data store across a plurality of supernetwork instances associated with the network. (par 267)
Adams discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, a supernetwork at least facilitating communication and payment between a plurality of different payment networks registered to the supernetwork. (par 1, 19, 39, 40)
It would be obvious to combine the Supernetwork of Adams with Murphy in order to make the exchange of payments and services smoother and more user friendly and to improve the lives of the users. (Adams, par 1, 35)
Regarding claim 6 –
Murphy discloses wherein causing the registration data to be written to the registry comprises storing the registration data and replicating the registration data across the plurality of network instances. (par 267)
Adams discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, a supernetwork at least facilitating communication and payment between a plurality of different payment networks registered to the supernetwork. (par 1, 19, 39, 40)
It would be obvious to combine the Supernetwork of Adams with Murphy in order to make the exchange of payments and services smoother and more user friendly and to improve the lives of the users. (Adams, par 1, 35)
Regarding claim 7 –
Murphy discloses determine that the payment network is to be removed from the registry; (par 301) and
remove the registration data associated with the payment network to be removed from the registry. (par 301)
Adams discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, a supernetwork at least facilitating communication and payment between a plurality of different payment networks registered to the supernetwork. (par 1, 19, 39, 40)
It would be obvious to combine the Supernetwork of Adams with Murphy in order to make the exchange of payments and services smoother and more user friendly and to improve the lives of the users. (Adams, par 1, 35)
Regarding claim 16 -
Murphy discloses wherein when executed, the machine-readable instructs further cause the computing device to at least:
generate updated registration data for the payment network; (par 167, 260-266) and
update the registration data in the registry. (par 167, 260-266)
Regarding claim 17 –
Murphy discloses at least validate the registration data associated with the payment network, the payment network being registered to participate in the supernetwork in response to the registration data being validated. (par 107,131,160-167, 203)
Regarding claim 20 -
Murphy discloses wherein the request is received via at least one of a user interface rendered on an administrator client device associated with the payment network, a command line interface, or an application programming interface (API). (par 46, 90)
Claims 2, 4, 8-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2020/0005295) in view of Adams et al (US 2021/0042799), Kim et al (US 2020/0267215)and Lam et al (US 2019/0378098).
Murphy in view of Adams and Kim discloses as above.
Regarding claims 2 and 18 –
Lam discloses wherein the network information further comprises at least one of a network identifier, a network name, a network type, a payment type, transaction message format data, routing logic, service level agreement (SLA) data, or market coverage. (par 160)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features of Murphy, Adams, and Kim, with Lam in order to obtain a secure payment method.
Regarding claims 4 and 19 –
Lam discloses wherein generating the registration data includes mapping a plurality of data elements identified in the network information to a plurality of data fields associated with a supernetwork registration model. (par 98, 114, 127)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features Murphy, Adams, and Kim, with Lam in order to obtain a secure payment method.
Regarding claim 8 -
Murphy discloses obtaining, via at least one computing device, network information associated with a payment network requesting to register with a supernetwork; (par 89, 135-138, 205) and
writing, via the at least one computing device, the payment network registration data to a registry that is distributed among a plurality of work instances. (par 267)
evaluating a network status of the payment network, the network status being based at least in part on a monitored transaction processing time; (par 76 “In its simplest form geolocation involves the generation of a set of geographic coordinates and is closely related to the use of positioning systems, such as global positioning systems (GPS). However, other non-satellite-based systems may be employed including for example geolocating or positioning based upon a location engine exploiting wireless/radio frequency (RF) location methods such as Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) where such information is accessible from multiple wireless transponders to allow triangulation.”, also par 175 “some or all segments of a TPr may be the subject to monitoring by a tracking and or chronological log system”) and
determining that the registration data associated with the payment network requires an update based at least in part on the network status. (par 167, 260-266)
Adams discloses, as Murphy does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, a supernetwork at least facilitating communication and payment between a plurality of different payment networks registered to the supernetwork. (par 1, 19, 39, 40)
It would be obvious to combine the Supernetwork of Adams with Murphy in order to make the exchange of payments and services smoother and more user friendly and to improve the lives of the users. (Adams, par 1, 35)
Lam discloses, as Murphy does not, generating, via the at least one computing device, payment network registration data for the payment network by mapping the network information to a plurality of fields associated with a supernetwork registration model (par 98, 114, 127)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features of Murphy, Kim, Adams, and Lam in order to obtain a secure payment method.
Regarding claim 9 –
Murphy discloses wherein the network information comprises at least one of a network identifier, a network name, a network type, a payment type, certificate data, network interface configuration data, network protocol data, transaction message format data, routing logic, service level agreement (SLA) data, or market coverage. (par 89, 135-138, 205)
Regarding claims 10 –
Murphy discloses wherein the network information is obtained via at least one of a user interface rendered on an administrator client device associated with the payment network, a command line interface, or an application programming interface (API). (par 46, 90)
Regarding claim 11 –
Murphy discloses wherein the plurality of network information comprises an authentication certificate. (par 102)
Regarding claim 12 –
Murphy discloses authenticating the payment network based at least in part on the authentication certificate. (par 102)
Regarding claim 13 –
Murphy discloses determining that an expiration period the authentication certificate is within a predefined threshold;
generating a notification indicating that the authentication certificate is about to expire; (par 102) and
transmitting the notification to an administrator client device using contact information included in the payment network registration data. (par 102)
Regarding claim 13 –
Murphy discloses determining that an expiration period the authentication certificate is within a predefined threshold;
generating a notification indicating that the authentication certificate is about to expire; (par 102) and
transmitting the notification to an administrator client device using contact information included in the payment network registration data. (par 102)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights