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
Applicant filed an amendment on October 01, 2025. Claims 1-21 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 6-7, 14-15, and 20-21 have been amended. No new claims have been canceled, with claim 19 remaining canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus claims 1-18 and 20-21 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “claims 1-18 and 20-21 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter; claims 1-18 and 20-21 are patent-eligible because the alleged abstract idea of a “Communication Protocol” is not recited in any of the claims, which is required under Step 2A according to MPEP § 2106.04 II A; claims 1-18 and 20-21 are patent-eligible because the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application due to an improvement in the field of real-time payment networks; the present application describes technical problems with interoperability of different real-time payment networks; to solve these technical problems the claims 1-18 and 20-21 are directed to unconventional technical solutions; the technical solution recited in the claims involves using various limitations for addressing the technical problem related to interoperability of different real-time payment networks; claim 1 recites a specific implementation for improving real-time payment networks by querying a participant status among other elements; because Applicant is claiming unconventional technical solutions to a technical problem, claims 1-18 and 20-21 are not abstract and are directed to a practical application; claims 1-18 and 20-21 are patent-eligible because the claims include multiple additional elements that amount to significant more than the alleged abstract idea; claim 1 recites multiple additional elements for enabling different real-time payment networks to operate together; these additional elements are integrated into an inventive concept for enabling different real-time payment networks to operate together; and the claims are not directed to an abstract idea .”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240257128 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘128 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention relates to increasing the ability of the financial institutions to make payments to other financial institutions in real-time, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 8 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “transmitting, by a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance, a query to a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub; determining, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, a network participant status for the participant system based at least in part on a query response from the first network hub, the network participant status being an indication that the participant system is available on the first supernetwork instance and has an available network speed of the participant system; updating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, a participant status cache based at least in part on the network participant status; propagating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, the network participant status to a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance; and propagating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, the network participant status to a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance”, “a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “the global transaction router by the first supernetwork instance”, “the participant system”, “updating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, a participant status cache based at least in part on the network participant status”, “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “sending a payment request based on network status”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status.” The claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the method for “sending a payment request based on network status”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea, “sending a payment request based on network status”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. sending a payment request based on network status concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a computing device”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “a participant status cache”, “a global transaction router”, “a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “a first supernetwork instance”, “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “sending a payment request based on network status” using computer technology (e.g., “a computing device” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “a global transaction router”, “a computing device”, “a first supernetwork instance”, “a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “a participant status cache of the first supernetwork instance”, “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “sending a payment request based on network status” using computer technology (e.g., “a global transaction router” and “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by amending claim 1 to recite “a global transaction router comprising machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, causes the computing device to perform the operations of: transmitting …; determining …; updating …; propagating …; propagating …; and sending ...”, which do not represent any intended uses of the computing device. Claims 6-7 have been similarly amended to not represent any intended uses of the computing device. Based on amended claim 1, Examiner has rescinded the rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for dependent claims 2-7, which depend from claim 1.
Additionally, claims 15 and 20 are also similar amended to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by not representing any intended uses of the computing devices. Based on amended claim 15, Examiner has rescinded the rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for dependent claims 16-18 and 20-21, which depend from claim 15.
Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to “a system”; claims 8-14 are directed to “a method”; and claims 15-18 and 20-21 are directed to “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 8 recites “sending a payment request based on network status”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim “transmitting, by a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance, a query to a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub; determining, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, a network participant status for the participant system based at least in part on a query response from the first network hub, the network participant status being an indication that the participant system is available on the first supernetwork instance and has an available network speed of the participant system; updating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, a participant status cache based at least in part on the network participant status; propagating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, the network participant status to a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance; and propagating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, the network participant status to a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP § 2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance”, “a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “the global transaction router by the first supernetwork instance”, “the participant system”, “updating, by the global transaction router hosted by the first supernetwork instance, a participant status cache based at least in part on the network participant status”, “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of “sending a payment request based on network status” using computer technology (e.g., “a global transaction router” and “a first network hub”). Therefore, as these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a computing device”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “a participant status cache”, “a global transaction router”, “a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “a first supernetwork instance”, “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “sending a payment request based on network status” using computer technology (e.g., “a computing device” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “a global transaction router”, “a computing device”, “a first supernetwork instance”, “a first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “a participant status cache of the first supernetwork instance”, “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “sending a payment request based on network status” using computer technology (e.g., “a global transaction router” and “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-21 further describe the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15, above. Also, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-21 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “sending a payment request based on network status”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-21 do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the dependent claims merely describes the concept of “sending a payment request based on network status” using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 1-18 and 20-21 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jagalpure et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200210977 A1) – Methods And Systems For A Reliable Payment Transaction
Jagalpure discloses a method and systems for determining connectivity information of payment network for a reliable payment transaction. The method includes receiving a connectivity information request before performing a payment transaction via payment network. The method includes generating a connectivity check message including a plurality of connectivity status flags associated with payment entities in payment network. The method includes sending the connectivity check message to the payment entities in a predefined sequence of a payment transaction flow in the payment network. The method further includes facilitating setting up the plurality of connectivity status flags based on a successful communication of the connectivity check message between the payment entities in the predefined sequence. The method includes determining if each of the plurality of connectivity status flags is set with the success state. Upon determining the success state, the method further includes generating a successful connectivity information for performing the payment transaction.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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 D. Donlon can be reached (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 January 30, 2026