DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 21-28 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 29-34 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., machine), and claims 35-40 are directed to a computer system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 21:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 21 recites the at least following limitations of “generating, …, comprising authorization success factors for each of a plurality of payment transaction parameters using … payment transaction parameters, and authorization results for a plurality of past payment transactions; determining, …, one or more transaction modification rules …; generating, …, a modified payment transaction by including a parameter that was not included in an original payment transaction, excluding a parameter that was included in the original payment transaction, or altering a parameter that was included in the original payment transaction according to the one or more transaction modification rules; and submitting, …, the modified payment transaction to a financial institution for processing; receiving, …, first response data including a payment transaction authorization result of an approval or denial for the submitted modified payment transaction and second response data including one or more negative results from the financial institution after processing, wherein the one or more negative results comprise one or more of: a fraud alert and an increase in a rate of chargebacks; analyzing, …, the first response data and the second response data, wherein the analyzing includes evaluation of the one or more negative results independent of the first response data including an approval or denial; modifying, …, the one or more transaction modification rules to improve an approval rate of the payment transaction authorization result and reduce an occurrence of the one or more negative results ; and optimizing, …, the authorization success factors of each of the plurality of payment transaction parameters … based on the analyzing of the first response data and the second response data, wherein the optimized transaction … is applied to a subsequent transaction.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for processing the modified payment transaction by a financial institution). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 21 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 29:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 29 recites the at least following limitations of “generating, …, comprising authorization success factors for each of a plurality of payment transaction parameters using … payment transaction parameters, and authorization results for a plurality of past payment transactions; determining, …, one or more transaction modification rules …; generating, …, a modified payment transaction by including a parameter that was not included in an original payment transaction, excluding the parameter that was included in the original payment transaction, or altering the parameter that was included in the original payment transaction according to the one or more transaction modification rules; and submitting, …, the modified payment transaction to a financial institution for processing; receiving, …, first response data including a payment transaction authorization result of an approval or a denial for the submitted modified payment transaction and second response data including one or more negative results from the financial institution after processing, wherein the one or more negative results comprise one or more of: a fraud alert and an increase in a rate of chargebacks; analyzing, …, the first response data and the second response data, wherein the analyzing includes evaluation of the one or more negative results independent of the first response data including an approval or denial; modifying, …, the one or more transaction modification rules to improve an approval rate of the payment transaction authorization result and reduce an occurrence of the one or more negative results; and optimizing, …, the authorization success factors of each of the plurality of payment transaction parameters … based on the analyzing of the first response data and the second response data, wherein the optimized transaction … is applied to a subsequent transaction.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for processing the modified payment transaction by a financial institution). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 29 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer”, “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer”, “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 35:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 35 recites the at least following limitations of “generate, …, comprising authorization success factors for each of a plurality of payment transaction parameters using … payment transaction parameters, and authorization results for a plurality of past payment transactions; determine, …, one or more transaction modification rules …; generate, …, a modified payment transaction by including a parameter that was not included in an original payment transaction, excluding a parameter that was included in the original payment transaction, or altering a parameter that was included in the original payment transaction according to the one or more transaction modification rules; submit, …, the modified payment transaction to a financial institution for processing; receiving, …, first response data including a payment transaction authorization result of an approval or a denial for the submitted modified payment transaction and second response data including one or more negative results from the financial institution after processing, wherein the one or more negative results comprise one or more of: a fraud alert and an increase in a rate of chargebacks; analyze, …, the first response data and the second response data, wherein the analyzing includes evaluation of the one or more negative results independent of the first response data including an approval or denial; modify, …, the one or more transaction modification rules to improve an approval rate of the payment transaction authorization result and reduce an occurrence of the one or more negative results; and optimize, …, the authorization success factors of each of the plurality of payment transaction parameters … based on the analyzing of the first response data and the second response data, wherein the optimized transaction … is applied to a subsequent transaction.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for processing the modified payment transaction from by financial institution). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 35 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 22-28, 30-34, and 36-40 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 22: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., adding the received payment transaction authorization result and parameters of the modified payment transaction to a database of payment transaction processing results, wherein the received payment transaction authorization result indicates whether the payment transaction parameters of the modified payment transaction led to an authorization and a reason response code), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in dependent claim 21. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by a database amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., a database) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 23: simply provide further definition to “the modifying one or more parameters of the payment transaction” recited in independent claim 21. Simply stating that wherein the modifying one or more parameters of the payment transaction further comprises: comparing the parameters of the payment transaction to the generated authorization success factors wherein, the generated authorization success factors indicate a greater likelihood of authorization of the payment transaction does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 24, 30, and 36: simply provide further definition to “the payment transaction parameters” recited in independent claims 21, 29, and 35. Simply stating that one or more of a billing address, a card verification value (CW), a payment processing network, a payment vehicle expiration date, a payment vehicle issuer token, and a merchant classification code (MCC) amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a payment processing network, a payment vehicle issuer token).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 25, 31, and 37: simply provide further definition to “the authorization success factors” recited in independent claims 21, 29, and 35. Simply stating that an absence of one or more of the billing address, the CW, and the payment vehicle expiration date does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 26, 32, and 38: simply provide further definition to “the merchant” recited in independent claims 21, 29, and 35. Simply stating that the merchant is associated with a plurality of MCCs, and the authorization success factors indicate a likelihood of authorization of the payment transaction associated with each MCC among the plurality of MCCs does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 27, 33, and 39: simply provide further definition to “a plurality of payment networks” recited in independent claims 21, 29, and 35. Simply stating that a plurality of payment networks are available for submitting the modified payment transaction for processing, and the authorization success factors indicate a likelihood of authorization of the payment transaction associated with each payment network among the plurality of payment networks amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a plurality of payment processing networks, each payment network of the plurality of payment networks).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 28, 34, and 40: simply provide further definition to “the generating the modified payment transaction” recited in independent claims 21, 29, and 35. Simply stating that wherein the generating the modified payment transaction comprises providing a payment vehicle issuer token amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a payment vehicle token).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
7. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 21-40 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant submits that the claimed steps are not "certain methods of organizing human activity" and are in fact additional elements that illustrate integration into the practical application … Applicant has amended claim 21. Independent claim 21 now recites: 21. A method for optimizing transaction authorization conversion rates using measured feedback, comprising: generating, by a processor, a transaction success model comprising … the authorization success factors of each of the plurality of payment transaction parameters of the transaction success model based on the analyzing of the first response data and the second response data, wherein the optimized transaction success model is applied to a subsequent transaction … Applicant respectfully submits that in the Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024- 000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) the decision clarified how "software can make non-abstract improvements." (Desjardin, p. 8.) Specifically, the reasoning in Ex Parte Desjardins states: Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of
technological improvements … Here, the Specification recites an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field by improving the generated transaction success model to both improve the authorization results (i.e., increasing approvals) and reduce the negative results that may occur regardless of a positive authorization result … Rules engine 345 may, accordingly,
present payment transaction 506 with the MCC with the greatest likelihood of obtaining authorization. Likewise, transaction request 506 may have multiple payment networks 532 available for submission to issuer financial institution 518 for processing … Here, the amended claims recite an improvement to the modeling technologies used for formatting and optimized payment transactions in at least, "receiving, by the processor, first response data including a payment transaction authorization result of an approval or a denial for the submitted modified payment transaction … the authorization success factors of each of the plurality of payment transaction parameters of the transaction success model based on the analyzing of the first response data and the second response data, wherein the optimized transaction success model is applied to a subsequent transaction." These features are not certain methods of organizing human activity and instead are additional elements that must be considered for "integration . . . into practical application." (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). The additional elements instead perform the recited claim features to improve the generated transaction success model by modifying the modification rules and optimizing authorization success factors to improve approval rates in authorization results while decreasing negative results such as fraud alerts and increased chargebacks. For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that the claims are directed to statutory subject matter. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests withdrawal of the Section 101 rejections (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-7).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended independent claim 21 at issue includes limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for processing the modified payment transaction by a financial institution). Also, the amended independent claim 21 at issue does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field because the amended independent claims 21 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer”, “a processor”, “a transaction success model”, and “a data science engine”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
The best prior art of record, JOUBERT et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0255908), hereinafter, “JOUBERT”, Sharma (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0357974), hereinafter, “Sharma”, Wheeler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0137530), hereinafter, “Wheeler”, Alliston (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0036998), hereinafter, “Alliston”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application amended claim limitations of "generating, by a processor, a transaction success model comprising authorization success factors for each of a plurality of payment transaction parameters using a data science engine, payment transaction parameters, and authorization results for a plurality of past payment transactions; determining, by the processor, one or more transaction modification rules by applying the generated transaction success model; generating, by the processor, a modified payment transaction by including a parameter that was not included in an original payment transaction, excluding a parameter that was included in the original payment transaction, or altering a parameter that was included in the original payment transaction according to the one or more transaction modification rules; analyzing, by the processor, the first response data and the second response data, wherein the analyzinq includes evaluation of the one or more neqative results independent of the first response data includinq an approval or denial; modifying, by the processor, the one or more transaction modification rules to improve an approval rate of the payment transaction authorization result and reduce an occurrence of the one or more neqative results; and optimizing, by the processor, the authorization success factors of each of the plurality of payment transaction parameters of the transaction success model based on the analyzinq of the first response data and the second response, wherein the optimized transaction success model is applied to a subsequent transaction."
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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 Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696