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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on November 19, 2025.
Claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 17-18, and 20 were previously cancelled.
Claims 22-30 were added.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 19, and 21-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception per se. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recited limitations to execute transactions over a network. This determination is considered an abstract idea because it is an example of a commercial interaction, which falls under the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional limitations included with the abstract idea were either insignificant extra-solution activity or hardware/software components that merely served as tools to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment. Insignificant extra-solution activity and computer components used as tools do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter. In this case, the one or more processors that perform the determination process are merely computer components used as tools to implement the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter. This is not a “close call” because it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant further asserted that the amended claims provide details of how a solution to a particular problem in existing technology is accomplished. Examiner disagrees. The amended claims either included a further description of the abstract idea or additional elements comprised of computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities. The computer components did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they were merely used as tools to implement the judicial exception in a computer environment, and such usage does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they were incidental to the judicial exception and did not provide any meaningful limitations. The further description of the abstract idea did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because an abstract idea is not made any less abstract by further describing it. The alleged solution to a particular problem in existing technology is an abstract idea and does not result in patent eligible subject matter because it merely uses the technology as a tool instead of improving upon the technology. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention provided an improvement in the functioning of a technology or technical field by improving system integration between a first decentralized computing system and a second decentralized computing system where the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system are able to access information from each other due to a first entity associated with the first decentralized computing system and a second entity associated with the second decentralized computing system being merged as a result of a business merger between the first entity and the second entity. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide an improvement in the functioning of a technology or technical field by improving system integration because Applicant’s claimed invention does not result in any degree of integration of the first and second computing systems. Instead, Applicant’s claimed invention makes a determination as to which system is better suited to perform a particular interaction. Once the determination is made, Applicant’s claimed invention aggregates data from all of the performed interactions, irrespective of which system performed the interaction. The determination and aggregation steps of Applicant’s claimed invention does not amount to an integration of the two systems. The aggregation of data in Applicant’s claimed invention was recited as an insignificant extra-solution activity that was incidental to the main purpose of determining whether an interaction should be completed by a first system or a second system. The aggregation was also described at such a high level of generality that it cannot impose any meaningful limits on the claimed invention such that the data aggregation could be an improvement in the technological field of data aggregation. Thus, Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a technology or technical field by improving system integration. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention implemented the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Examiner disagrees. The “rules engine” identified by Applicant as a particular machine is not described as a particular machine in the Specification or the claims. In fact, the rules engine is not described as a machine at all. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion that the rules engine is a particular machine is a conclusory statement that is unsupported by any facts. Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of any recited judicial exception to a technical environment and amount to significantly more than a judicial exception since additional elements recited in the independent claims provide an inventive concept. Examiner disagrees. The additional elements recited in the independent claims consist of computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities incidental to the judicial exception. The computer components do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely used as tools to implement the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities do not provide an inventive concept because they do not provide any meaningful limitations to the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technical environment. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because Applicant’s claimed invention is similar to the patent eligible subject matter in Example 37. Examiner disagrees. Unlike Example 37, Applicant’s claimed invention does not result in the improvement of a user interface or any other computer component. Applicant’s claimed invention also recites a judicial exception. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to the patent eligible subject matter in Example 37. Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because claim 1 includes a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, and therefore, recite an inventive concept and are patent eligible under Step 2B. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention, as a whole, does not recite an inventive concept because Applicant has not described or explained an inventive concept attributable to any combination of limitations in the claimed invention. Individually, the limitations do not recite an inventive concept because they are either abstract, insignificant extra-solution activities, or generic computer components recited at such a high level of generality that they do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the technical field of data integration, routing, and aggregation is improved by the recitations of claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The integration, routing, and aggregation features of claim 1 were recited at a high-level of generality, and such a recitation does not represent an improvement to any technical field. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claim is necessarily rooted in computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in the realm of disparate computer system integration and communication. Examiner disagrees. The alleged solution in Applicant’s claimed invention is an abstract commercial interaction. A commercial interaction is a certain method of organizing human activity, and such methods are not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest “automatically determining…whether to perform the interaction by the first decentralized computing system or the second decentralized computing system…the automatically determining including: implementing one or more rules associated with the first type of source, and at least one rule associated with the second type of source; evaluating, using a rule engine, parameters of: (i) the interaction, (ii) the first decentralized computing system, and (iii) the second decentralized computing system, wherein the rule engine indicates which of the parameters to assign greater significance,” as recited by amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Ur reference teaches “automatically determining…whether to perform the interaction by the first decentralized computing system or the second decentralized computing system…the automatically determining including: implementing one or more rules associated with the first type of source, and at least one rule associated with the second type of source; evaluating, using a rule engine, parameters of: (i) the interaction, (ii) the first decentralized computing system, and (iii) the second decentralized computing system, wherein the rule engine indicates which of the parameters to assign greater significance,” (See Ur: pgh 16). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest different types of sources or that nodes are part of a first decentralized computing system or a second decentralized computing system that is different from the first decentralized computing system. Examiner disagrees. The Ur reference discloses a system and method for determining the optimal route between a source node and a destination node (see Ur: pgh 7). The Ur reference addresses the issue of routing data where multiple source nodes and destination nodes reside in different networks (Ur: pgh 6 and 8). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest “integrating…data of both the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system” as recited by amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Ur reference teaches “integrating…data of both the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system” (See Ur: pghs 21 and 70). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest “retrieving for display, via the one or more processors and via the single webpage, a portion of the consolidated list of interactions based on a first user selection of a predetermined number of transactions,” as recited by amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Ur reference teaches “retrieving for display, via the one or more processors and via the single webpage, a portion of the consolidated list of interactions based on a first user selection of a predetermined number of transactions,” (See Ur: pgh 282). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest “upon receiving a second user selection to scroll down the single webpage, retrieving a remainder portion of the consolidated list of interactions for further display,” as recited by amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Kingsley reference teaches “upon receiving a second user selection to scroll down the single webpage, retrieving a remainder portion of the consolidated list of interactions for further display,” (see Kingsley: pgh 51). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 19, and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 19, and 21-30 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and product Claim 19. Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
[a memory; a processor; programming instructions stored in the memory, wherein execution, by the processor of the programming instructions causes the processor to:]
authenticate identifying information [received from a computing device];
automatically determine, at least partially based on data associated with the identifying information, whether to perform the interaction by the first decentralized computing system or the second decentralized computing system, the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system being able to access information from each other due to a first entity associated with the first decentralized computing system and a second entity associated with the second decentralized computing system being merged as a result of a business merger between the first entity and the second entity, the user identifying information being associated with both the first type of source and the second type of source, the automatically determining including: implementing one or more rules associated with the first type of source, and at least one rule associated with the second type of source; evaluating, using a rule engine, parameters of: (i) the interaction, (ii) the first decentralized computing system, and (iii) the second decentralized computing system, the rule engine indicating which of the parameters to assign greater significance; and identifying, based on the indication, an elected system from the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The memory, processor, computing device, first decentralized computing system, second decentralized computing system, and single webpage in Claim 9 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a computing device, a first decentralized computing system, a second decentralized computing system, and a single webpage. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. The claims also recite additional elements to receive, from the computing device, a selection to initiate an interaction between a first type of source associated with a first decentralized computing system and a second type of source associated with a second decentralized computing system different from the first decentralize computing system, wherein the second type of source is different from the first type of source, wherein the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system utilize distributed ledger technology; transmit, based on identifying the elected system, an initiation to the elected system to perform the interaction; transmit, to the computing device, a notice associated with the interaction, the notice being generated by the elected system; integrate, upon completion of the interaction, data of both the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system, the integrating including: the elected system generating, based on the integrating, a consolidated list of completed interactions for display via a single webpage, the consolidated list of completed interactions being associated with the identifying information and including interactions performed by the first decentralized computing system and by the second decentralized computing system, the consolidated list of interactions being limited to a preselected timeframe to prevent system load delay and accelerate load time for display of the consolidated list of interactions via the single webpage; and retrieve for display, via the single webpage and on the computing device, a portion of the consolidated list of interactions based on a first user selection of a predetermined number of transactions; and upon receiving a second user selection to scroll down the single webpage, retrieve a remainder portion of the consolidated list of interactions for further display. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activities incidental to the primary commercial interaction. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activities does not amount to an inventive concept and does not indicate the integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 9, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements that recite extra-solution activity also do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 9, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 5, 6, 7, 13-16, and 21-30 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 19 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activities and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 5, 6, 7, 13-16, and 21-30 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 5, 6, 7, 13-16, and 21-30 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 19, and 21-30 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13-16, 19, 22, 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2022/0101310) in view of Ur (US 2019/0342205) in view of Kingsley (US 2013/0325703).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 9, and 19:
Kumar teaches:
a memory; a processor; programming instructions stored in the memory, wherein execution, by the processor of the programming instructions causes the processor to: (Kumar: pgh 56, “The computer system includes at least one processor for executing instructions, a memory, and a communication interface.”)
authenticate identifying information received from a computing device; (Kumar: pgh 47, “The environment 100 also includes a payment transaction terminal 118 that communicates directly, or indirectly, with the acquirer server 108. Examples of the payment transaction terminal 118 include, but are not limited to a Point-of-Sale (POS) terminal…and a user device…In one embodiment, a user may perform a payment transaction using the user device (i.e., the mobile phone)…”)
Kumar does not teach, however, Ur teaches:
receive, from the computing device, a selection to initiate an interaction between a first type of source associated with a first decentralized computing system and a second type of source associated with a second decentralized computing system different from the first decentralize computing system, wherein the second type of source is different from the first type of source, [wherein the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system utilize distributed ledger technology]; (Ur: pgh 137, “…processor may be configured to produce a routing path selection, associating the requested transaction with the selected routing path. System 200 may include a routing engine 209, configured to receive routing path selection from processor 201, and determine or dictate the routing of requested transaction 206 in computer network 210 between the source node…and destination node…according to the routing path selection.”)
automatically determine, at least partially based on data associated with the identifying information, whether to perform the interaction by the first decentralized computing system or the second decentralized computing system, the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system being able to access information from each other due to a first entity associated with the first decentralized computing system and a second entity associated with the second decentralized computing system being merged as a result of a business merger between the first entity and the second entity, the user identifying information being associated with both the first type of source and the second type of source, the automatically determining including: implementing one or more rules associated with the first type of source, and at least one rule associated with the second type of source; evaluating, using a rule engine, parameters of: (i) the interaction, (ii) the first decentralized computing system, and (iii) the second decentralized computing system, the rule engine indicating which of the parameters to assign greater significance; and identifying, based on the indication, an elected system from the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system; (Ur: pgh 10, “…extract from the transaction request, a feature vector (FV), that may include at least one feature; pgh 14, “The at least one processor may be configured to attribute at least one group characteristic (GC) to the requested transaction…”; pgh 16, “…select an optimal route for the requested transaction from a plurality of available routes, based on at least one of the FV and GC and at least one weighted source preference.”; pgh 78, “…selecting a destination node from the plurality of destination nodes based on one or more of the transaction parameters…”; pg 187, “…neural network may be configured to receive at leastone of: a list that may include a plurality of available routing paths from processor; at least one cost metric associated with each available route; at least one requested transaction’s FV; the at least one request transaction’s GC; at least one source preference weight; and at least one external condition…” pgh 279, “…processor may be configured to select the source node based on the rule table and respective source preference weights.” )
transmit, based on identifying the elected system, an initiation to the elected system to perform the interaction; (Ur: pgh 218, “…routing engine may receive a routing path selection, assigning an optimal routing path to a specific requested monetary transaction between the source node…and the merchant’s destination terminal…”)
transmit, to the computing device, a notice associated with the interaction, the notice being generated by the elected system: (Ur: pgh 219, “Routing engine…may route at least one communication between the source node and the destination node via the selected optimal routing path, including for example: a funds transfer message from the source node to the destination node…”)
integrate, upon completion of the interaction, data of both the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system, the integrating including: the elected system generating, based on the integrating, a consolidated list of completed interactions for display via a single webpage, the consolidated list of completed interactions being associated with the identifying information and including interactions performed by the first decentralized computing system and by the second decentralized computing system, the consolidated list of interactions being limited to a preselected timeframe to prevent system load delay and accelerate load time for display of the consolidated list of interactions via the single webpage; (Ur: pgh 21, “…a cluster may include: accumulating a plurality of FVs, each including at least one feature associated with a respective received transaction…”; Ur: pgh 70, “Routing the requested transaction may be limited by a timeframe, and the ordered list may be ordered based on at least one of” the timeframe and a completion time of at least routing attempt.”)
retrieve for display, via the single webpage and on the computing device, a portion of the consolidated list of interactions based on a first user selection of a predetermined number of transactions; and. (Ur: pgh 282, “computer may present the selected legal entity on a web page alongside other data…for the client to approve before finalizing the transaction.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar to include the teachings of Ur in order to optimize transaction processing based on a user’s preferences (Ur: pgh 6). Kumar/Ur does not teach, however, Kingsley teaches:
upon receiving a second user selection to scroll down the single webpage, retrieve a remainder portion of the consolidated list of interactions for further display. (Kingsley: pgh 51, “…the user may also view a list of other transactions in a batch of transactions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur to include the teachings of Kingsley in order to allow for a system that supports complex transactions (Kingsley: pgh 3). Kumar/Ur/Kingsley does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Vijayaraghavan teaches:
…wherein the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system utilize distributed ledger technology (Vijayaraghavan: pgh pgh 26, “Distributed ledgers (“shared ledgers”) may be used for transaction integrity. Thus, ledgers may be maintained by multiple independent entities on different computing devices.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur/Kingsley to include the teachings of Vijayaraghavan in order to better manage the flow of information among members of a transaction (Vijayaraghavan: pgh 6).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 15:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the interaction comprises at least one of bill pay, ACH transaction, and electronic transfer. (Kumar: pgh 29, “Further, the issuer may also facilitate online banking services, such as electronic money transfer, bill payment, etc.,…”)
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the first type of source and the second type of source are each respectively associated with a different checking account, savings account, money market account, certificate of deposit, mortgage account, loan account, retirement account, or brokerage account. (Kumar: pgh 30, “The term ‘payment account’ used throughout the description refers to a financial account that is used to fund the financial transaction…Examples of the payment account include, but are not limited to, a savings account, a credit account, an e-wallet account, a checking account and a virtual payment account.”)
Regarding claim(s) 13:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the interaction comprises sending a resource from the first type of source to the second type of source. (Kumar: pgh 5, “…payment transactions between the issuing bank and the acquiring bank route through a preferred interchange payment network…”)
Regarding claim(s) 14:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the resource comprises a currency. (Kumar: pgh 31, “Interbank networks may use a variety of different protocols and procedures in order to process the transfer of money for various types of transactions.”)
Regarding claim(s) 22:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the interaction comprises sending a resource from the first type of source to the second type of source. (Kumar: pgh 31, “Interbank networks may use a variety of different protocols and procedures in order to process the transfer of money for various types of transactions.”)
Regarding claim(s) 23:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the resource comprises a currency. (Kumar: pgh 29, “…the issuer may also facilitate online banking services, such as electronic money transfer…”)
Regarding claim(s) 25:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the identifying information includes any one or more of a user's: name, phone number, account number, code number, identifier indicating which entity the user is a client or customer with, profile data, biometric data, personal identification number, or two-step verification data. (Kumar: pgh 51, “…account details (i.e. account number) are accessed by the POS terminal…”)
Regarding claim(s) 26:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the first type of source and the second type of source are each respectively associated with the same type of source, wherein the source includes one of: a checking account, a savings account, a money market account, a certificate of deposit, a mortgage account, a loan account, a retirement account, or a brokerage account. (Kumar: pgh 30, “Examples of the payment account include, but are not limited to, a savings account, a credit account, an e-wallet account, a checking account and a virtual payment account.”)
Regarding claim(s) 27:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kingsley further teaches:
wherein the consolidated list of interactions incorporates one or more accounts of the first entity and one or more accounts of the second entity. (Kingsley: pgh 47, “Additionally, the user interface displays a list of transactions in batch of transactions that is currently being processed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur/Vijayaraghavan to include the teachings of Kingsley in order to allow for a system that supports complex transactions (Kingsley: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 29:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the identifying information includes any one or more of a user's: name, phone number, account number, code number, identifier indicating which entity the user is a client or customer with, profile data, biometric data, personal identification number, or two-step verification data. (Kumar: pgh 51, “…account details (i.e. account number) are accessed by the POS terminal…”)
Regarding claim(s) 30:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kumar further teaches:
wherein the first type of source and the second type of source are each respectively associated with the same type of source, wherein the source includes one of: a checking account, a savings account, a money market account, a certificate of deposit, a mortgage account, a loan account, a retirement account, or a brokerage account. (Kumar: pgh 30, “Examples of the payment account include, but are not limited to, a savings account, a credit account, an e-wallet account, a checking account and a virtual payment account.”)
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar/Ur/Kingsley in view of Hecht (US 11,599,862).
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hecht further teaches:
wherein the consolidated list of interactions incorporate one or more accounts of the first entity and one or more accounts of the second entity. (Hecht: col 10, lines 22-27, “In some embodiments, the biller processor computing system may be structured to receive data from a biller in an aggregated fashion (e.g., in a single data file that includes bills for a plurality of payers).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan to include the teachings of Hecht in order to accommodate the needs of multiple different transaction processors (Hecht: col 2, lines 25-35).
Regarding claim(s) 21:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hecht further teaches:
wherein the distributed ledger technology is associated with a cryptocurrency network. (Hecht: col 49, lines 57-63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan to include the teachings of Hecht in order to accommodate the needs of multiple different transaction processors (Hecht: col 2, lines 25-35).
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar/Ur/Kingsley in view of Hoiles (US 2024/0119458).
Regarding claim(s) 24:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Hoiles further teaches:
further comprising generating a pop-up notification indicating that either the performance of the interaction has been completed or that there was an error in performing the interaction. (Hoiles: pgh 84, “The system may…output a notification to user to indicate that the transaction is likely erroneous. This output may take any known form such as an email, text message, popup notification, sound, and/or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan to include the teachings of Hoiles in order to address costly transaction errors (Hoiles: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 28:
The combination of Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Hoiles further teaches:
wherein execution, by the processor further causes the processor to generate a pop-up notification indicating that either the performance of the interaction has been completed or that there was an error in performing the interaction. (Hoiles: pgh 84, “The system may…output a notification to user to indicate that the transaction is likely erroneous. This output may take any known form such as an email, text message, popup notification, sound, and/or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kumar/Ur/Kingsley/Vijayaraghavan to include the teachings of Hoiles in order to address costly transaction errors (Hoiles: pgh 4).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Koren (US 2022/0327504) discloses systems and method for automatic transaction routing and execution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 3, 2026
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693