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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 27, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on April 27, 2026. Claims 1-21 were pending in the Application. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 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 subject matter eligible; claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101; the separate eligibility analysis recited in MPEP §2106.04 (d)(II) was not performed for claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-21; this analysis does not consider “each claim for eligibility” as required; claims 1-18 and 20-21 do not recite a judicial exception; claim 8 is not directed toward the abstract idea of merely “sending a payment request based on network status’”; the claim is directed toward a technical design; this is a highly technical system that does not preempt any abstract concept or idea; claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception; claims 1-18 and 20-21 integrate the judicial exception that they allegedly recite into a practical application; the specification paras 14-16 describes a ”technical improvement … over the prior art”, which is undoubtedly a “technical solution” to a “technical problem”; the only remaining question under this prong is whether the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into this practical application, and submits that the claims do; the limitations of "identifying a first network hub by comparing the network identifier to a set of network identifiers corresponding to a set of network hubs" and "transmitting a query to the first network hub for a network status of a participant system" are related to the "technical solution" described and integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application; claims 1-18 and 20-21 recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception; claims 1-18 and 20-21 contain language that is not “well-understood” or “routine” for the relevant “industry”; and in the surrounding industry, none of this language is ”conventional activity” and instead represents an “inventive concept” and “significantly more” than the alleged judicial exception”.
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 “receiving a payment request corresponding to a recipient and associated with a network identifier; identifying a participant record matching a participant identifier associated with the
recipient by at least querying a participant status cache; based at least in part on identifying the participant record, identifying a first network hub by comparing the network identifier to a set of network identifiers corresponding to a set of network hubs; transmitting, by a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance, a query to the 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 on the first supernetwork instance; 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; 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: and sending the payment request to the first network hub for the participant system based at least in part on the network participant status”, which represent the abstract idea of “sending a payment request based on network status”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (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 participant status cache”, “a first network hub”, “a set of network hubs”, “a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance”, “a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”, “a participant status cache”, and “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they 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”.
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 claim is not directed to computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, 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. a 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, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; a participant status cache; and 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: …”, “a participant status cache”, “a first network hub”, “a set of network hubs”, “a first supernetwork instance”, “the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they 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, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 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, comprising a global transaction router executed by a first supernetwork instance, the global transaction router comprising machine-readable instructions, when executed by a computing device of the first supernetwork instance, cause the computing device to perform the operations of: …”, “a participant status cache”, “a first network hub”, “a set of network hubs”, “a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”, “a participant status cache of the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they 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. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 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. § 112(a), Written Description, for paragraph 29 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description. Applicant argument is persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, moot. Specification, (PG Pub US 20240257128 A1, para 27) provides support for “… The global transaction router 206 can be executed to route payment requests between network hubs 106 of different RTP networks 100 connected to a supernetwork instance 203 …”, which makes it clear that the global transaction router is software.
Specification, (‘128 A1, para 129) also provides support for “… any logic or application described herein that includes software or code can be embodied in any non-transitory computer-readable medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system such as a processor in a computer system or other system … the logic can include statements including instructions and declarations that can be fetched from the computer-readable medium and executed by the instruction execution system … a "computer-readable medium" can be any medium that can contain, store, or maintain the logic or application described herein for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system. …”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, paragraph 29 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 31 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope. Applicant argument is persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot.
Specification, (PG Pub US 20240257128 A1, para 27) provides support for “… The global transaction router 206 can be executed to route payment requests between network hubs 106 of different RTP networks 100 connected to a supernetwork instance 203 …”, which makes it clear that the global transaction router is software and the processor is part of the computing device, and not the global transaction router. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 31 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 32 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope. Applicant argument is persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot.
Specification, (PG Pub US 20240257128 A1, para 27) provides support for “… The global transaction router 206 can be executed to route payment requests between network hubs 106 of different RTP networks 100 connected to a supernetwork instance 203 …”, which makes it clear that the global transaction router is software.
Specification, (‘128 A1, para 129) also provides support for “… any logic or application described herein that includes software or code can be embodied in any non-transitory computer-readable medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system such as a processor in a computer system or other system … the logic can include statements including instructions and declarations that can be fetched from the computer-readable medium and executed by the instruction execution system … a "computer-readable medium" can be any medium that can contain, store, or maintain the logic or application described herein for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system. …”. Specification, (‘128 A1, paras 27 and 129) makes it clear that a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising a global transaction router (software) can be hosted by a first supernetwork instance. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 31 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 33 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope. Applicant argument is persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Specification, (PG Pub US 20240257128 A1, para 27) provides support for “… The global transaction router 206 can be executed to route payment requests between network hubs 106 of different RTP networks 100 connected to a supernetwork instance 203 …”, which makes it clear that the global transaction router is software and the processor is part of the computing device, and not the global transaction router. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 33 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated July 01, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, after further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious:
“transmitting a query to the first network hub for a network status of a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”,
“determining 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 a first supernetwork instance and has an available network speed of the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”,
“propagating the network participant status to a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”,
“propagating the network participant status to a second supernetwork instance connected to the first supernetwork instance”.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being rescinded is maintained.
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 “receiving a payment request corresponding to a recipient and associated with a network identifier; identifying a participant record matching a participant identifier associated with the recipient by at least querying a participant status cache; based at least in part on identifying the participant record, identifying a first network hub by comparing the network identifier to a set of network identifiers corresponding to a set of network hubs; transmitting, by a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance, a query to the 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 on the first supernetwork instance; 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; 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: and sending the payment request to the first network hub for the participant system based at least in part on the network participant status”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (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 participant status cache”, “a first network hub”, “a set of network hubs”, “a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance”, “a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they 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 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, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 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, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; a participant status cache; and 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: …”, “a first network hub”, “a set of network hubs”, “a global transaction router hosted by a first supernetwork instance”, “a first supernetwork instance”, “a participant system, the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they 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, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 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, comprising a global transaction router executed by a first supernetwork instance, the global transaction router comprising machine-readable instructions, when executed by a computing device of the first supernetwork instance, cause the computing device to perform the operations of: …”, “a participant status cache”, “a first network hub”, “a set of network hubs”, “a participant system, the participant system being connected to the first network hub”, “the participant system on the first supernetwork instance”, “a participant status cache of the first supernetwork instance”, and “a second network hub connected to the first supernetwork instance”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they 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. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 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, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor 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:
Reese et al (U. S. Patent No. 10911964 B2) – Methods And Apparatus For Providing Network Connectivity Data For A Computing Device Onboard A Vehicle
Reese discloses a method for presenting network connectivity data. The method comprises: testing a plurality of communications components and communications links of a network, wherein each of the plurality of components and communications links is communicatively coupled to a computing device, where the plurality of communications components and communications links is configured to provide the computing device access to a ground network; determining operational capability of each of the plurality of components and communications links; and presenting an indication of the operational capability for each of the plurality of components and communications links based upon results of the testing.
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 CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights