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 April 24, 2026.
Claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 17-18, and 20 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 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 Final.
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 an abstract idea from which the alleged improvement derives. An improved abstract idea is no less abstract. 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. Furthermore, the solution provided by Applicant’s claimed invention addresses an administrative problem, not a technical problem, and Applicant has not shown how a technical problem or limitation has been overcome to consolidate data from two distinct computing systems into a unified display. 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.
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 computing system for dynamic system selection, the system comprising: a memory; one or more processors; programming instructions stored in the memory, wherein execution, by the one or more processors of the programming instructions causes the one or more processors 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:
accessing, [by the one or more processors], account data stored [in a non-transitory storage device of a back-end server system], the account data comprising user accounts and transaction histories associated with both the first entity and the second entity, wherein the user accounts are consolidated on the back-end server system following the business merger such that a user associated with the identifying information can access accounts at both the first entity and the second entity without logging into multiple systems;
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 executed by the one or more processors], parameters of: (i) the interaction, (ii) the first decentralized computing system, and (iii) the second decentralized computing system, wherein one or more of the parameters is assigned greater significance than other parameters in determining which of the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system should complete the interaction, wherein the greater significance is in accordance with one or more predefined rules and is based at least in part on a type of the interaction; and
identifying, based on the evaluating and the greater significance assigned to the one or more parameters, 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, programming instructions, back-end server system, rule engine, 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 back-end server system, a rule engine, 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; loading for display, [by the one or more processors], a predetermined number of the consolidated list of interactions by default to prevent the single webpage from displaying a blank page during loading; 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Kumar (US 2022/0101310), Ur (US 2019/0342205), Kingsley (US 2013/0325703), Vijayaraghavan (US 2023/0035321), Hecht (US 11,599,862), and Hoiles (US 2024/0119458) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Kumar teaches methods and systems for determining an optimal interbank network for routing real-time payment transactions. Ur teaches system and method for optimizing routing of transactions over a computer network. Kingsley teaches systems, methods, and computer program products for membership program management. Vijayaraghavan teaches systems and methods for Hyperledger-based payment transactions, alerts, and dispute settlement, using smart contracts. Hecht teaches a user interface for a biller directory and payments engine. Hoiles teaches systems and methods for identifying potentially erroneous transactions. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious “a computing system for dynamic system selection, the system comprising: a memory; one or more processors; programming instructions stored in the memory, wherein execution, by the one or more processors of the programming instructions causes the one or more processors 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: accessing, by the one or more processors, account data stored in a non-transitory storage device of a back-end server system, the account data comprising user accounts and transaction histories associated with both the first entity and the second entity, wherein the user accounts are consolidated on the back-end server system following the business merger such that a user associated with the identifying information can access accounts at both the first entity and the second entity without logging into multiple systems; 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 executed by the one or more processors, parameters of: (i) the interaction, (ii) the first decentralized computing system, and (iii) the second decentralized computing system, wherein one or more of the parameters is assigned greater significance than other parameters in determining which of the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system should complete the interaction, wherein the greater significance is in accordance with one or more predefined rules and is based at least in part on a type of the interaction; and identifying, based on the evaluating and the greater significance assigned to the one or more parameters, an elected system from the first decentralized computing system and the second decentralized computing system”, as described by the allowed claims. For these reasons, claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 19, and 21-30 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
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.
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 of 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 extension fee 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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 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 W 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
June 24, 2026
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights