DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 10/31/2025. Amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 18 and 19 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 10 is directed to a system and claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for token mapping a payment card based on predicted transaction characteristics for routing and processing a transaction which is a fundamental economic practice, e.g. processing of payments, and commercial or legal interaction and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, in bold below, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
accessing, by one or more servers of an account management system, information associated with a payment account comprising characteristics of a plurality of previous transactions associated with the payment account in response to a token remapping event for the payment account, the payment account corresponding to a plurality of separate sub-accounts including a debit sub-account and a credit sub-account tied to a physical card or a digital card of the payment account;
determining, by the one or more servers utilizing a prediction model of the account management system that is trained on payment account information and account details to predict transaction characteristics for future transactions, predicted transaction characteristics for a future transaction involving the physical card or the digital card based on the information associated with the payment account, the predicted transaction characteristics comprising a predicted payment amount, a predicted transaction type, a predicted transaction location, a predicted transaction recipient, or a combination thereof;
generating, by the one or more servers of the account management system, a request comprising an application programming interface call to a payment network to cause the payment network to perform a token remapping operation asynchronously from processing a subsequent transaction to create a token mapping between a payment account number of the payment account and a token of a selected sub-account of the payment account according to the predicted transaction characteristics for the future transaction and a set of rules by changing a stored value representing the payment account to a processing pipeline for the selected sub-account; and
processing, by the one or more servers of the account management system, the subsequent transaction initiated using the physical card or the digital card of the payment account routed to a debit processing pipeline or a credit processing pipeline via the payment network based on the token mapping between the payment account and the selected sub-account, wherein the token remapping operation causes a first set of computing devices to process the subsequent transaction utilizing the debit processing pipeline or a second set of computing devices to process the subsequent transaction utilizing the credit processing pipeline in accordance with the token remapping operation performed asynchronously from processing the subsequent transaction.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “one or more servers”, a prediction “model” that is trained, “an application programming interface”, a payment “network” and a first and second set of computing “devices” in claim 1, “one or more non-transitory computer readable media; and at least one processor”, a prediction “model” that is trained, “an application programming interface”, a payment “network” and a first and second set of computing “devices” in claim 10 and “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor”, a “machine-learning model” that is trained, “an application programming interface”, a payment “network” and a first and second set of computing “devices” in claim 18, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea as do claims 10 and 18.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed to perform the steps of accessing, determining, generating and processing. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed, see at least paragraphs [0019], “In some embodiments, utilizing and training a machine-learning model to predict the transaction characteristics of a future transaction provides improved accuracy of determining whether a transaction that is yet to occur should be processed via a specific processing pipeline.” This is a most high level general description of an iterative algorithm that produces an accurate value which is then merely used to improve the abstract idea, [0020], “…the dynamic token mapping system can leverage existing hardware and software of payment network servers/devices to provide dynamic tokenization for a payment account.”, [0023], “In one or more embodiments, the payment network 108 include one or more payment gateway systems, one or more card networks (e.g., MASTERCARD), and/or one or more card issuer systems (e.g., bank issuers) to process electronic card transactions in connection with the account management system 114. Furthermore, the payment network 108 include one or more servers to generate, store, and transmit data associated with initiating and processing payment transactions via the account management system 114.”, [0033], [0049], “To illustrate, the third-party system 402 generates the predicted transaction characteristics based on a model or algorithm that identifies trends or specific statistics in a dataset (e.g., a regression model).”, [0088-0097] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the application programming interface (API) call is an additional element and most fundamental computing activity allowing for the communication between software programmed on computers. Asynchronously merely means that the future predicted transaction is mapped to a credit or debit card with nothing technically more. Furthermore, the step of “accessing, by one or more servers of an account management system, information associated with a payment account…” is considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea as are claims 10 and 18.
Under step 2B, 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 of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network via an API(s) to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the step of “accessing, by one or more servers of an account management system, information associated with a payment account…” is considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible nor are claims 10 and 18.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the insignificant extra-solution activity steps rely on well-understood, routine and conventional computing functionality carried out by a generic processor with memory such as gathering stored data gathering akin to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of token mapping a payment card based on predicted transaction characteristics for routing and processing a transaction, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 19 and 20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2, 11 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by leveraging a model, i.e. a mathematical algorithm, to determining future transaction amounts based on a plurality of previous transaction amounts associated with a payment card. Claim 11 merely further defines the predicted amount as being based on an average amount of the previous transaction amounts. Claim 2 recites the use of a prediction model and claim 19 recites the use of a machine-learning model, both of which are algorithms, executed on a generic processor for determining an outcome and are recited at a very high level of generality such that this is merely leveraging a programmed computer processor to apply the abstract idea. Claim 3 applies the use of a trained machine-learning model to predict transaction characteristics according to trends which further refines the abstract idea. The trained machine-learning model is merely applying the abstract idea on a generic computer running an algorithm that calculates values. Claim 4 further refines the abstract idea by claiming use of a validated prediction model, i.e. an algorithm, to use for predicting the transaction characteristics which is part of the abstract idea. The additional element of a third-party system is merely generic computing elements applying the abstract idea with nothing significantly more. Claims 12 and 13 are analyzed in a similar manner. Claims 5 and 14 refine the abstract idea by determining a sub-account from a plurality of sub-accounts corresponding to the predicted characteristics and generating a request to create a token mapping which are part of the abstract idea. The additional element of an application program interface (API) is leveraging generic computing elements communicating via an API which is exactly how software communicates between each other. Claim 6 further refines the abstract idea by determining that the predicted future payment amount is less than what is available in the balance of an account. Claims 7 and 16 recite sending a token, i.e. representation of a payment account, via a processing pipeline corresponding to the credit sub-account which is merely selecting an account for processing via generic servers of a payment network. Claim 8 recites determining various information associated with the payment account at a very high level of generality with no technical details. This is merely further refining the type of information used in the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by detecting certain information changes and remapping or mapping a processing pipeline for the token. There are no technical implementation details such that a human could not select a change from debit to credit, or vice versa, payment processing. Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of determining information of the plurality of separate sub-accounts and comparing information with nothing significantly more. Claim 20 uses the set of business rules as determining, through comparing data, the sub-account for generating a request for associating the sub-account to the payment account.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for token mapping a payment card based on predicted transaction characteristics for routing and processing a transaction) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and running a prediction algorithm and communicating via APIs over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for token mapping a payment card based on predicted transaction characteristics for routing and processing a transaction) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 10/31/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“Thus, the claims are integrated into a practical application and provide a technical solution to technical problem. For example, by providing for a "token remapping operation [that] causes a first set of computing devices to process the subsequent transaction utilizing the debit processing pipeline or a second set of computing devices to process the subsequent transaction utilizing the credit processing pipeline in accordance with the token remapping operation performed asynchronously from processing the subsequent transaction," as recited in amended claim 1, the claimed invention can enable improved processing efficiency and reduced latency for computing systems that manage and process payment transactions in contrast to prior systems that are limited to predefined processing pipelines.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mapping or assigning a future transaction to be credit or debit card transaction does not provide any underlying technological improvement. For instance, as an example, one can mentally chose to pay a future recurring transaction with a debit or credit card. In fact, you can set up this recurring transaction with credit or debit company prior to executing said transaction. The underlying generic processors are not improved or made more efficient by being programmed to carry this abstract idea out prior to the transaction execution.
On pages 16 and 17, Applicant argues ‘“By utilizing a prediction model trained on payment account information and account details to predict transaction characteristics for future transactions, the claimed features can realize improvements to prior systems. For example, the Specification recites that "utilizing and training a machine-learning model to predict the transaction characteristics of a future transaction provides improved accuracy of determining whether a transaction that is yet to occur should be processed via a specific processing pipeline." Specification at [0020]. Thus, the claimed features-like the allowable claim in Example 39-do not recite a judicial exception and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.”’ and ‘“For example, the technical advantages provided by the claims are analogous to Example 47 of the 2024 USPTO subject matter eligibility examples. In particular, the claim in Example 47 was deemed to be patent eligible because "the disclosed system detects network intrusions and take real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic." See 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, p. 12.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim of Example 39 merely recited training a neural network in stages based on training data sets. This is not similar to Applicant’s invention because the instant recited claims are directed to the abstract idea of token mapping a payment card based on predicted transaction characteristics for routing and processing a transaction applied on generic computers. Applicant leverages the trained model to produce a value to be used to improve the abstract idea. Applicant’s invention is not similar to Example 47 claim 3 because the improvement in Applicant’s invention is directed to the abstract idea not any underlying technical problem.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s invention is more analogous to claim 2 of Example 47 in that the trained algorithmic model is claimed at a very high level of generality and leveraged to merely produce values that are used to improve the abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (‘“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”’
On page 18 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“Likewise, in following the line of reasoning outlined by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, as well as the provisions of MPEP §2106.04(d), the claimed invention is also necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. For example, the currently amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea but include concrete limitations that improve "the accuracy and flexibility of computing systems involved in processing transactions." Specification at [0021].”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant application and those of DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings an improvement in web technology was used to address the problem of retaining web customers. DDR Holdings was solving a problem introduced by technology, such that it was a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicants’ invention is a solution through leveraging generic computers programmed to solve a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The claims of the instant case employ computer systems comprising a storage device and a processor suitably programmed, i.e. with a mathematical algorithm, to perform the claimed functions. In light of the Alice decision and the 2019 PEG, the features such as “accessing, by one or more servers of an account management system, information associated with a payment account comprising characteristics of a plurality of previous transactions associated with the payment account in response to a token remapping event for the payment account” and “determining, by the one or more servers utilizing a prediction model of the account management system that is trained on payment account information and account details to predict transaction characteristics for future transactions, predicted transaction characteristics for a future transaction”, “generating, by the one or more servers of the account management system, a request comprising an application programming interface call to a payment network to cause the payment network to perform a token remapping” (this could be done in a myriad of ways to include a phone call to a bank representative to set up a recurring transaction from a debit or credit account) and “processing, by the one or more servers of the account management system, the subsequent transaction initiated using the physical card or the digital card of the payment account” are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. These features recited in the claim are only further refinements of the abstract idea. That does not change the fact that the claim is drawn to abstract ideas. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. As discussed earlier, the claimed steps of the method are all functions that are conventional for a computer system, which in the Applicant’s invention comprises a storage device and a processor. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only "steps, specified at a high level of generality," which is insufficient to supply an "inventive concept." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In Alice also the system was specifically programmed to perform the claimed functions.
On page 20 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Similar to the claims in BASCOM, in contrast to the assertions by the Office Action, the claim limitations of the currently amended claims, considered as a whole, amount to an inventive concept because the ordered combination of the limitations of the claims provides improvements to computing systems as described above. In particular, as previously mentioned, the claimed limitations improve computing systems and hardware involved in processing payment transactions by using dynamic token remapping via predicted transaction characteristics asynchronously from subsequent transactions, allowing for computing devices of different processing pipelines to process the transaction. The claimed limitations thus tie the limitations to a specific computing environment of computing devices and hardware involved in routing transaction data via the appropriate processing pipeline.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Bascom. In Bascom, the claims describe a filtering system by providing customized filters at a remote server. Specifically, in Bascom an ISP server receives a request to access a website, associates the request with a particular user, and identifies the requested website. The filtering tool then applies the filtering mechanism associated with the particular user to the requested website to determine whether the user associated with that request is allowed access to the website. The filtering tool returns either the content of the website to the user, or a message to the user indicating that the request was denied. In Bascom another group of claims describe a hybrid filtering scheme implemented on the ISP server comprised of a master-inclusive list, an individual-customizable set of exclusive lists, and an individual-customizable set of inclusive lists. The focus of the claims in Bascom is on the specific asserted improvement in filtering technology by providing individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. Specifically, the claimed invention in Bascom achieves other benefits over conventional filtering by providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for a person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for (potentially millions of) local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user, and structuring a filtering scheme not just to be effective, but also to make user-level customization administrable as users are added instead of becoming intractably complex. Hence the Bascom claims are not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Bascom was a technological solution to a technological problem (using an improved filtering technology rather than using conventional filtering technology). Applicants’ invention is a business solution, predicting a future transaction and assigning said transaction to a credit or debit card account, to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The arrangement of allowing the system to access information associated with a payment account, determining predicted transaction characteristics for a future transaction, generating a request to perform a token remapping of a selected mapping, thereby processing a transaction as a debit or credit based on the token mapping, is an improvement in the business process of choosing an account token for routing and processing a transaction. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejections above, rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
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 CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693