teNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 11/26/2025.
Claims 2, 7, 11, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 12-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2106), the claim must be evaluated as a whole, including the combination and integration of all recited technical features. Amended claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method executed by at least one processor, a data storage, and at least one external device that are communicably coupled via a communication network (pars. [0066]-[0068]). The processor receives transaction data comprising a plurality of transactions, arranged in a chronological (first) order, and transaction specifications (pars. [0016] and [0025]); records the transaction data in the storage (par. [0068]); sequentially evaluates transactions in chronological order (par. [0043]); determines liquidity values either based on stored liquidity or by computing net positions if liquidity information is not available (par. [0026]); updates participant liquidity and constructs the plurality of transactions rearranged in a second order by adding feasible transactions to the settlement sequence and adding infeasible transactions to a pending queue (par. [0039]); stores the continuously updated second order in the storage (pars. [0044] and [0068]); transmits a communication indicative of the second order to a device executing a Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system (par. [0066]); and initiates real-time settlement by the RTGS system in the second order on a one-by-one basis without netting (par. [0041]). Accordingly, the claims define a specific computer-implemented process that manipulates structured financial input data using a defined sequence of technical processing steps and machine interactions.” (response at 14-15)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, The claim amendments do not remover the abstract idea. The claims still are drawn to Managing liquidity and therefore represent fundamental economic practice.
Applicant argues on page 15 that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing repeated global recalculation results directly in fewer required processor operations and therefore a reduction in computational load and execution time.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, a reduction in complexity is not an improvement to computer technology, specifically improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer.
the hardware data repository as related to the data repository amounts to mere instruction to apply the exception to a computer environment, specifically using computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(f)(2) “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”
Applicant further argues, “A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this real-time, transaction-by-transaction state management across thousands or millions of interrelated records cannot be performed by a generic computer acting merely as an instruction executor, but instead reflects a specific way of configuring the processor to carry out the method as claimed in amended claim 1.” (response at 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the specific technological architecture that represents a technological solution does not appear in the claims, only a recitation of hardware. the hardware data repository as related to the data repository amounts to mere instruction to apply the exception to a computer environment, specifically using computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(f)(2) “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”
Applicant further argues Enfish on page 17 of the response.
Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims do not improvement computer technology, nor the way computers store and retrieve data.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to BASCOM as “particular arrangement of steps, including sequential state-dependent liquidity evaluation, real-time construction of the settlement order based on continuously updated liquidity values, and automated initiation of RTGS settlement through networked communication, that produces a more efficient way for the computer system to process transaction data at scale.” (Response at 18)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, “valuate liquidity as each transaction is encountered, and construct the settlement sequence directly from these updates instead of repeatedly reevaluating the full transaction set” is abstract as fundamental economic practice, and the argues improvement t efficiency amounts to a reduction of load on the computer which is not an improvement to the computer.
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims 1 and 12 recite “recording the transaction data in the first order in the hardware data storage” and “selecting, from the data storage, a first transaction in the first order;” and “recording the transaction data rearranged in the second order in the hardware data storage” The Specification, however, does not support the claim as amended. For example, [0016] and [0068] discloses [0016] The transaction data is received in the payment system from a data source. Examples of the data source could be, a data repository, a cloud server, devices associated with the participant, and the like. The payment system may be implemented as at least one software application. The at least one software application could be a single software application or a plurality of software applications. The at least one software application helps to receive the transaction data. It will be appreciated that the payment system and the fund transfer system are associated with each other to receive the transaction data and settle the plurality of transactions. Optionally, the fund transfer system is a part of the payment system. Further, it will be noted that receiving the plurality of transactions refers to recording information of the plurality of transactions.” And [0068] “The system may further comprise a data repository communicably coupled to at least the at least one processor, wherein the data repository is configured to store thereat at the transaction data and the second order. The data repository is implemented at a remote memory associated with the system.” which is not in line with “recording the transaction data in the first order in the hardware data storage” and “selecting, from the data storage, a first transaction in the first order;” and “recording the transaction data rearranged in the second order in the hardware data storage” To the contrary, para 16, and 68 describe describes receiving transaction data from a data store and a data repository that is configured to store transaction data and the second order.
Claims 3-6, 8-10, and 13-14 are further rejected as they depend on either their respective independent or dependent claims.
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, 3-6, 8-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1 and 12 directed to a method and a system.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a “managing liquidity requirements” which is a grouped under “fundamental economic practice” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
A computer-implemented method for managing liquidity requirements in a payment system executed by at least one processor, a hardware data storage and at least one device, wherein the hardware data storage and the at least one device are communicably coupled with each other and to the at least one processor via a data communication network, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, transaction data arranged in a first order, the transaction data comprising:
a plurality of transactions in the payment system,
wherein the first order is a chronological order in which the plurality of transactions is received, and
specifications of the plurality of transactions, wherein the specification of a transaction includes at least a sender, at least a receiver, and a value of said transaction, recording the transaction data in the first order in the hardware data storage; and
determining, by the at least one processor, available liquidities of participants in the plurality of transactions, each participant being the sender or the receiver in at least one transaction amongst the plurality of transactions, wherein determining the available liquidities of the participants in the plurality of transactions comprises:
identifying whether the transaction data includes liquidity information comprising balances and overdraft limits of the participants in the payment system;
when the transaction data comprises the liquidity information, assigning the available liquidities of the participants based on the liquidity information;
when it is determined that the transaction data excludes the liquidity information, computing net positions of the participants based on the specifications of the plurality of transactions, wherein a net position of a participant is equal to a total value of transactions received by the participant minus a total value of transactions sent by the participant; and
assigning the available liquidities of the participants, based on the net positions of the participants,
wherein when the net position of the participant is positive or zero, assigning an available liquidity of the participant to be equal to zero, and when the net position of the participant is negative, assigning an available liquidity of the participant to be equal to an absolute value of the net position;
determining, by the at least one processor, a second order in which the transaction data is rearranged and the transactions are settled by:
selecting, from the data storage, a first transaction in the first order;
executing instructions to compare a value of the given transaction with an available liquidity of a sender of the given transaction to determine feasibility of settlement of the given transaction; and
selecting, from the data storage, each subsequent transaction from the first order, wherein after each selection, the method further comprises executing instructions to compare the value of each of the subsequent transactions with the available liquidity of the sender of each of the subsequent transactions;
re-arranging the transaction data in the second order and recording the transaction data rearranged in the second order in the hardware data storage, wherein when the value of the given transaction is less than or equal to the available liquidity of the sender, the given transaction is added to the second order and
when the value of the given transaction is greater than the available liquidity of the sender, and adding the given transaction to a pending transaction queue of the sender adding the given transaction to a data structure representing a pending transaction queue of the sender and recording the data structure representing the pending transaction queue of the sender in the hardware data storage;
transmitting, by the at least one processor, a communication indicative of the second order to the device executing a Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system; and
initiating, by the at least one processor, execution of real-time settlement of the plurality of transactions arranged in the second order by the RTGS system, wherein the plurality of transactions is settled on a one-by-one basis independently of netting the plurality of transactions, the settlement being initiated based on the second order stored in the data storage.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 1 such as “at least one processor, a hardware data storage and at least one device, wherein the hardware data storage and the at least one device are communicably coupled with each other and to the at least one processor via a data communication network”, “recording the transaction data in the first order in the hardware data storage;”, “at least one processor”, “selecting, from the data storage, a first transaction in the first order;”, “transmitting, by the at least one processor, a communication indicative of the second order to the device executing a Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system;” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, it does not provide a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than [mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing liquidity requirements.
Hence, claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the transaction data further comprises at least one of: dates of the plurality of transactions, times of the plurality of transactions, transaction constraints and/or risk controls, and wherein determining, … the feasibility of settlement of the given transaction is performed by also determining whether the given transaction complies with the transaction constraints and/or risk controls, wherein when the given transaction complies with the transaction constraints and/or risk controls, it is determined that the given transaction can be settled and the given transaction is added to the second order.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice. The additional element of the “at least one processor” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 4 recites “wherein when it is determined that the given transaction can be settled, the method further comprises”, “updating, …, an available liquidity of a receiver of the given transaction by adding the value of the given transaction to the available liquidity of the receiver”, “checking, …, a pending transaction queue of the receiver of the given transaction to determine whether there exist one or more transactions in said pending transaction queue, wherein the receiver of the given transaction is the sender for the one or more transactions”, “when it is determined that there exist the one or more transactions in said pending transaction queue, for the one or more transactions in said pending transaction queue, comparing a value of the one or more transactions with the updated available liquidity”, “when the value of one of the one or more transactions is less than or equal to the updated available liquidity”, “determining, …, that said transaction can be settled using the updated available liquidity and adding said transaction to the second order.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice. The additional element of the “at least one processor” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 5 recites “wherein when it is determined that the value of the one of the one or more transactions is less than or equal to the updated available liquidity, the method further comprises updating, …, the updated available liquidity by reducing the value of said transaction from the updated available liquidity.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice. The additional element of the “at least one processor” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 6 recites “adding, …, any transactions existing in pending transaction queues of their senders, to the second order, according to positions of said transactions in the first order.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice. The additional element of the “at least one processor” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites “wherein when the plurality of transactions comprises at least one recurring transaction, the method further comprises updating, …, the first order prior to the step of determining the second order in which the plurality of transactions is to be settled, by moving the at least one recurring transaction towards a beginning of the first order.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice. The additional element of the “at least one processor” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the method is implemented at a plurality of time instants in a time period to enable transaction settlement in a batch-wise manner, and wherein the transaction data corresponding to a given implementation of the method at a given time instant pertains to at least one of: one or more transactions that are submitted for settlement in a time duration between a previous time instant at which a previous implementation of the method is performed and the given time instant, one or more transactions that are unsettled at an end of a previous implementation of the method.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice.
Claim 10 recites “… the method further comprises providing, …, an incentive to senders of transactions that are submitted for settlement during a predefined time period in a day.” However, this merely describes the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice. The additional element of the “at least one processor”, and “the payment system is a large-value payment system (LVPS)” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as they do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of the “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send, to at least one device executing the fund transfer system, a communication indicative of the second order in which the plurality of transactions is arranged.” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Additionally, “…send, to at least one device executing the fund transfer system, a communication indicative of the second order in which the plurality of transactions is arranged” does not provide a practical application as it is no more than sending data as part of performing an economic task of “banknote suspension and reinstatement” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of the “wherein the at least one processor is communicably coupled to devices of the participants in the payment system, wherein the transaction data is obtained by the at least one processor from said devices.” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as it does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, 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.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Cao (US 2020/0311695 A1) Teaches Privacy preserving gridlock resolution.
Hecht (US 10572951 B1) Teaches Multi-source liquidity tracking
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692