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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received July 09, 2026. Claim(s) 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13 and 15-19 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 4-21 are pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Priority
Application No. 18223476 filed 07/18/2023 is a Continuation of 16797992, filed 02/21/2020.
Applicant Name/Assignee: Mastercard International Incorporated
Inventor(s): Rohlfing, Patricia; Rohlfing, Joan Lee; Yog, Desh Deepak; Powell, Michael Scott
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Oath/Declaration
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/09/2026 is insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 based upon determination of patent ineligibility under the 101 statute as set forth in the last Office action because:
The affidavit describes that transaction processing consumes computing resources when identifying and processing reversal transactions and that the claimed invention does not rely on decentralized processing structures but instead a different computer architecture which includes a computer network, network server using proprietary communications (vendor exclusive network protocol) and a centralized database having multiple partitions. Applicant argues in the affidavit that the application of the centralized database having multiple partitions and centralized processor reduces duplicative processing when applied to perform payment processing performed by multiple payment processing systems, issuing bank systems, merchant systems and other participating computing devices. The applicant argues the claimed limitations recite specific data processing techniques that reduce resource consumption by parsing the centralized database using identifiers to identify records that satisfy categories of reversible (chargeback) instructions. Applicant’s argument with respect to the parsing of the database using identifiers is not supported in the specification. The specification discloses:
[0044] Database 106 may include a single database having separated sections or partitions, or may include multiple databases, each being separate from each other. In some embodiments, database 106 stores transaction data generated over the processing network including data relating to merchants, consumers, account
holders, prospective customers, issuers, acquirers, and/or purchases made. In additional embodiments, database 106 also stores account data including at least one of a cardholder name, a cardholder address, one or more primary account numbers (PAN s ), other account identifiers, and transaction information. Database 106 may also
store merchant information including a merchant identifier that identifies each merchant registered to use the network, and instructions for settling transactions including merchant bank account information. Database 106 may also store purchase data associated with items being purchased by a cardholder from a merchant, authorization request data, authorization messages, and clearing messages.
The specification does not provide any process where the database is parsed using identifiers, rather the specification discloses:
[0006]… in the at least one memory, the identified automatically-reversible electronic instructions of the first type, (iv)
identify, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic
message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0007]…identifying, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0008]… identify, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0024]… identifying automatic chargeback-eligible transactions from the plurality of processed
transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching of the authorization
messages with the clearing messages,….
[0078]… Method 800 further includes matching 810 the plurality of authorization messages with the respective plurality of clearing messages for each processed transaction. Automatic chargeback-eligible transactions are
identified 815 from the plurality of processed transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching 810 of the authorization messages with the clearing messages….
Accordingly the specification and claims do not support applicant’s argument that the inventive concept includes the parsing of databases using identifiers in order to “reduce resource consumption”. The affidavit, specification and claims do not provide evidence that the claimed process of parsing data or databases are to reduce consumption. It is known in the art to one of ordinary skill in that art that Centralized databases, since all data is stored at a single location that it is easier to access data, and has very minimal data redundancy and cheaper than the use of decentralized databases. Accordingly the use of a centralized database as claimed in merely applying known technology in its ordinary capacity. Accordingly applicant’s argument that the use of centralized databases improves data processing is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues in the affidavit that improvement in data processing includes identifying categories of instructions by determining whether a transaction lacks an associated authorization/decline message. The process includes additional analysis only on records that fail to meet conditions and comparing authorization and clearing messages with remaining records, identifying mismatches, invalid/flagged identifiers. The process includes a second category of processing only after completion of first category of processing where only a subset of records reducing database operations and where the staged identification decreases the computing resources required to identify reversible instructions. Applicant statement, the specification and claims lacks support that analyzing data records using identifiers in a two steps process is directed toward reducing database operations or decreasing computer resources.
Applicant states in the affidavit that the system operations are computer specific by performing operations including comparing authorization and clearing messages, identifying mismatched messages, detecting invalid identifiers, parsing partition database records, generating standardized files and executing reversals through network transmissions. Applicant states the computer operations are performed on large volumes of transaction data and require interactions among network servers, databases, processors and computing devices. Applicant’s statement and claim limitations merely describes the computer environment applied to perform the identified abstract idea of performing chargeback processes. The argument does not address the previous rejection which found that the technology or technical operations recited in the claim is not directed toward improvement to technology or technical process, provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology or integrates the judicial exception that goes beyond generally linking the technology to the abstract idea under step 2A or the 2B analysis that the operations when considered individually or in combination recite unconventional technical process or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea being implemented in a computer environment.
Applicant’s affidavit does not overcome the previous Office action determining that the claims and specification focus on how the technology is applied to perform the reversal transaction action rather than any specific technical process or any other factors required for patent eligibility. The recited operations are high level lacking technical disclosure and thus insufficient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claimed limitations under MPEP 2016.04(a) and MPEP 2106.04(II)(A) arguing that the claimed limitations under step 2A prong 1, is not directed toward the abstract category of mental processes. This is because the claim limitations require computer architecture and technical processes. Applicant’s argument is moot, the claim limitations under step 2A prong 1, was not found patent ineligible for being directed toward the abstract category mental processes
The examiner notes that applicant does not address the rejection under step 2A prong 1, the abstract category methods of organizing human activity the claim limitations are directed toward.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claim limitations under step 2A prong 2 and MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues the limitations improve functioning of conventional transaction processing networks providing technical solutions to latency and inaccurate technical problems of known computer systems by providing specific computer-network architecture that shifts the operations from a distributed computer network to a centralized environment. Applicant is arguing limitations not claimed. There is no process recited in the claim limitations for shifting from a distributed computer network to a centralized environment.
In the remarks applicant argues that the application of storing data sets in a centralized database and centralized transaction analysis reducing duplicative processing when performed by multiple payment processing systems, improving the operation of the computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The claim limitations merely apply technology to identify transaction related data records according to conditions and identifying a second set of data records failing to satisfy for each data set using the identifiers a corresponding messages, identifying first type of instruction a portion of second set of data records according to reversible conditions where the records are aggregating into a single file and executed to reversal of the data sets and forwarded to computer devices. The limitations are not directed toward reducing duplicative processing and do not have any impact upon the operation of network technology or the improvement thereof. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the data processing techniques improve computing efficiency. The recitation of identifying a first category of reversible instructions and performing additional analysis on records that fail to satisfy the first category. The recitation of comparing authorization and clearing messages associated with remaining records to identify mismatches, invalid identifiers, invalid/flagged messages reduces database operations and process utilization. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Improving upon the abstract idea of analyzing transaction records according to reversible/chargeback instructions does not improve the technology itself and is not directed toward the technology. Instead the process is directed toward improving the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained
In the remarks applicant argues pointing to MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2016.05(d)(I)(3) that the pending claims provide significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant argues the specific limitations performed are not conventional routine technical process that merely confine the abstract idea. The recited limitations when considered individually and/or in combination provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. Applicant argues the claimed process as explained in the declaration and the arguments above, recite specific computer network architecture using proprietary communications standard(well understood technology prevalent in the field), a centralized database (well understood and prevalent in the field of database technology), and centralized processor (generic well understood and prevalent in the computer technology) used for storing records, analyzing records and performing analysis and reversal/chargeback determinations reducing duplicative processing and improvement of computer resource utilization. Applicant argues the limitation recite a particular sequence of data- processing operations, including identifying a first category of automatically reversible electronic instructions and performing additional analysis only on records that fail to satisfy the first category. The claims compare authorization and clearing messages associated with the remaining records to identify mismatches, invalid identifiers, invalid messages, or flagged identifiers. This staged processing reduces unnecessary database operations and processor utilization. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the claim limitation lack technical details as to the technical process for performing the operations, instead the claimed limitations focus on the data acted upon in order to improve upon the transaction process for determining reversal/chargeback processing. Improving an abstract idea is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, as discussed above, the claimed process does not improve upon any of the underlying technology or provide a technical process that ordinary use of technology to apply the abstract idea. The applicant has not shown that the steps to perform the reversal process changes how processors or databases perform their ordinary operations or improve upon their capacity to perform the operations, rather the arguments are directed toward the process for performing the transaction process using identifiers in the analysis for executing reversals/chargebacks. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the specification and prosecution history, the examiner is interpreting the following language of the claims to be:
receive data records [transaction data] associated with a plurality of data sets [transactions] processed over a predetermined time period by a computer network, the data records [transaction data] including a plurality of identifiers, a plurality of first electronic messages [authorization messages], and a plurality of second electronic messages [clearing messages] associated with the data sets [transactions];
The data records are analogous to transaction data as per the specification, the first electronic messages are analogous to authorization messages and the second messages are analogous to clearing messages.
identify a first type of at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions [chargeback transactions] by matching, based on the plurality of identifiers, the plurality of first electronic [authorization] messages with the respective plurality of second [clearing] electronic messages for each data set [transaction] of the plurality of data sets [transactions], the first type corresponding to an invalid first electronic [authorization] message;
The language "automatically-reversible. electronic instructions" is interpreted to be analogous to chargeback transactions, the term "identifiers" are identifiers relevant to the chargeback transactions. This interpretation is maintained throughout the claim limitations and annotated in the rejection for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to Claims 1-3 and 5-21:
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation “parse, using the plurality of identifiers, the at least one centralized database”, “parsing, using the plurality of identifiers, the at least one centralized database” and “parse, using the plurality of identifiers, the at least one centralized database” respectively which is new matter. The original presentation of the written disclosure has no possession of or description of “parse[ing]” the at least one centralized database” using identifiers or any other technical process for parsing centralized databases. The specification has support for:
[0044] Database 106 may include a single database having separated sections or partitions, or may include multiple databases, each being separate from each other. In some embodiments, database 106 stores transaction data generated over the processing network including data relating to merchants, consumers, account holders, prospective customers, issuers, acquirers, and/or purchases made. In additional embodiments, database 106 also stores account data including at least one of a cardholder name, a cardholder address, one or more primary account numbers (PAN s ), other account identifiers, and transaction information. Database 106 may also store merchant information including a merchant identifier that identifies each merchant registered to use the network, and instructions for settling transactions including merchant bank account information. Database 106 may also store purchase data associated with items being purchased by a cardholder from a merchant, authorization request data, authorization messages, and clearing messages.
Please note the original specification has support for a single database having separated in sections/partitions or multiple databases separate from each other. But there is no possession of a process for where the single database is separated into sections or partitions by any technical process or technology.
The specification does not provide any process where the database is parsed using identifiers, rather the specification discloses:
[0006]… in the at least one memory, the identified automatically-reversible electronic instructions of the first type, (iv)
identify, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic
message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0007]…identifying, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0008]… identify, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0024]… identifying automatic chargeback-eligible transactions from the plurality of processed
transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching of the authorization
messages with the clearing messages,….
[0078]… Method 800 further includes matching 810 the plurality of authorization messages with the respective plurality of clearing messages for each processed transaction. Automatic chargeback-eligible transactions are
identified 815 from the plurality of processed transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching 810 of the authorization messages with the clearing messages….
Therefore, the limitations which recite parsing databases using identifiers is new matter.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 and 21: Claim(s) 9-14; and Claim(s) 16-20 dependent upon claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively also contain the same deficiencies as discussed with respect to the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to claims 1-3, 5-7 and 21:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 1 recites functions to (1) parse using plurality of identifiers at least one centralized database, (2) identify first set of data records satisfying first type of reversible/chargeback instructions (i) lacks association with one or plurality of plurality of first electronic message or associated with a first message of a plurality of messages have been declined (3), compare for each second set of data records a corresponding one of a plurality of messages to a respective plurality of second electronic messages (4) identify non-concurrently with first type of reversible/chargeback instructions a portion of the second set of data records satisfying a second type of instructions by (i) failing to match corresponding first message to the respective second message or parsing second set of data records to identify at least one invalid identifier, an invalid first message, an invalid second message or flagged identifier (5) generate a single file which includes aggregating data, formatting data and storing transaction data file, (6) execute reversal of processed data sets by forwarding data file to computer devices. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process for risk mitigation. This is because the claimed limitations are directed toward a chargeback process for determining valid reversals/chargebacks. The specification discloses that the focus of invention is to provide a system for initiating chargeback transactions from a plurality of processed transaction based on satisfying rules/requirements in order to identify certain transaction as being automatic charge-back eligible transactions. (para 0005). The specification discloses identifying first and second types of messages (chargeback messages) where the first type of message is invalid and second type includes invalid identifier, that is stored and formatting the two types in a standard format as a single data file that is transmitted.(para 0006). Accordingly the specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to parse chargeback messages for analysis in order to determine invalid message and identifiers message, where the determined invalid message and invalid identifier message are stored as a single file and transmitted for use in a chargeback transaction activity. Which when considered in light of abstract subject matter is directed toward commercial activity and risk mitigation.
Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions and sales activity. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “computing system” comprising a “computer network comprising a network server”, “at least one centralized database comprising a plurality of partitions”, “at least one processor in communication with the at least one centralized database and the computer network”
The computer network comprising a network server applied for the intended use to process plurality of data sets complaint with a proprietary communications standard for exchange of data sets between computing devices on the network.
The centralized database accessible by the network server applied for the intended use to “store data records”
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “parse using identifiers the centralized database to identify records, failing to provide details as to how identifiers parse the centralized database” as a technical process. The specification makes clear that the centralized database can have separate partitions but fails to provide any means for parsing the centralized database.
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “identify first type of two types of reversible/chargeback instructions by matching messages”, “compare for each of the second set of data records and using identifiers associated with second set of data records a corresponding one of electronic messages to one of plurality of second messages”, “identify non-concurrently with first type irreversible/chargeback instruction which include failing to match data records to first electronic messages, (ii) parsing second data records to identify second set of records with invalid identifier, invalid first message and/or flagged identifier”, where the processor is merely applied to analyze data for a transaction process.
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “generate a single data file by aggregating and formatting two types of reversible/chargeback instructions” which is directed toward manipulation.
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “execute a reversal of the …data sets by forwarding formatted single data file, to computer devices -directed toward applying technology to perform the transaction process and transmit data.
The processor claimed recites high level functions without technical details of “store…first type of reversible/chargeback instructions” and “store…second type of reversible/chargeback instructions”- which is a process directed toward a transaction record keeping process.
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations “recited” as the claimed limitations do not provide any details on the technology or technical processes to perform the recited functions. For data, mere “manipulation” of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (i.e., the extent to which (or how) the transformation imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps). A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76, 101 USPQ2d at 1967. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that this step was only a field-of-use limitation and did not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h).
When considered as a in part as a whole the combination of limitations 1-3 and 4-6 is to analyze and store received data which not directed toward indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2, but rather a transaction process where a processor is applied as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The combination of limitations 1 and 2-4 are directed toward parsing databases using identifiers and analyzing transaction data records and identifiers using reversal/chargeback related instructions which is merely applying technology to analyze data stored in a database and in messages. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-6 is directed toward aggregating and formatting the results into a single file of the analysis of limitation 1-4 that is forwarded to other devices for executing a reversal/chargeback process – directed toward a transaction activity When considered as a whole the claimed limitations merely apply a processor to automate the analysis of transaction records using identifiers according to reversal/chargeback instruction conditions and requirement and then the results of the analysis are combined/aggregated into a single files which contains the first and second types of reversible/chargeback instructions and corresponding data and then forward to computer devices.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology. Although the abstract idea is dependent upon the ordered combination, the recited functions are independent and not a combination to enact a specific technical process. For example the match function is not dependent upon the receive function nor is the identify function dependent upon the match function such as found in BASCOM, where the filtering process was dependent upon the ordered combination. In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claimed functions are directed toward a transaction process. The combination of steps does not add any indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2, by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receive data, match authorization data, identify eligible transaction, aggregate, format and store eligible transaction data and transmitting organized data which is a process directed toward a business practice of data manipulation for use in a transaction process. The collection and manipulation of data by formatting the data into a standardized format function is high level lacking technical disclosure without any details as to technical implementation. The data manipulation fails to change the operation of the underlying technology in any way. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to manipulate received data for a transaction process and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “computing system” comprising a “computer network comprising a network server”, “at least one centralized database comprising a plurality of partitions”, “at least one processor in communication with the at least one centralized database and the computer network”
The computer network comprising a network server applied for the intended use to process plurality of data sets complaint with a proprietary communications standard for exchange of data sets between computing devices on the network.
The centralized database accessible by the network server applied for the intended use to “store data records”
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “parse using identifiers the centralized database to identify records, failing to provide details as to how identifiers parse the centralized database” as a technical process. The specification makes clear that the centralized database can have separate partitions but fails to provide any means for parsing the centralized database.
The additional operations of the processor “identify…set of data records satisfying …reversible/chargeback instructions”, “compare….a corresponding first …message to a respective …plurality of second …message”, “identify …portion of second set of data records as satisfying…second type of…reversible/chargeback instructions”, “generate a single data file by aggregating and formatting …into standardized data format…portion first and second data records” and “execute a reversal/chargeback of the processed data sets…by forwarding over the computer network the …single data file to the computer devices” without technical details -–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a system comprising a processor and memory capable of performing the functions “identify…set of data records satisfying …reversible/chargeback instructions”, “compare….a corresponding first …message to a respective …plurality of second …message”, “identify …portion of second set of data records as satisfying…second type of…reversible/chargeback instructions”, “generate a single data file by aggregating and formatting …into standardized data format…portion first and second data records” and “execute a reversal/chargeback of the processed data sets…by forwarding over the computer network the …single data file to the computer devices”. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer system processor to perform the transaction process claimed ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer and therefore is not sufficient to provide significantly more than using technology to perform the abstract idea. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receive”, “identify …by matching”, “store”, “generate single file”, “identify and parse data”, “format and store data” and “transmit” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of the activities claimed in the claimed limitations of the application are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses:
[0021]… Once transactions are determined to be automatic chargeback-eligible transactions, the AC computing device aggregates the chargeback-eligible transactions into a single data file. The AC computing device then formats the single data file into a standardized format such that the single file may be easily transmitted and read…
[0023] The methods and systems directed to the AC computing device described herein may be implemented using computer programming or engineering techniques including computer software, firmware, hardware or any combination or subset thereof, wherein the technical effect may be achieved by performing at least one of the following steps: (i) receiving transaction data associated with a plurality of processed transactions, the transaction data including a plurality of account identifiers, a plurality of authorization messages, and a plurality of clearing messages associated with the plurality of processed transactions, (ii) matching the plurality of authorization messages with the respective plurality of clearing messages for each processed transaction of the plurality of processed transactions, (iii) identifying automatic chargeback-eligible transactions from the plurality of processed transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching of the authorization messages with the clearing messages, (iv) storing, in the at least one memory, the identified automatic chargeback-eligible transactions, (v) automatically initiating a chargeback transaction for each identified automatic chargeback-eligible transaction. “
[0027] As used herein, the term "database" may refer to either a body of data, a relational database management system (RDBMS), or to both. A database may include any collection of data including hierarchical databases, relational databases, flat file databases, object-relational databases, object oriented databases, and any other structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system The above examples are for example only, and thus, are not intended to limit in any way the definition and/or meaning of the term database…
[0028] The term processor, as used herein, may refer to central processing units, microprocessors, microcontrollers, reduced instruction set circuits (RISC), application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), logic circuits, and any other circuit or processor capable of executing the functions described herein.
[0056] The processed transactions stored 309, 312, and 316 in separate databases are aggregated and formatted 318 by AC computing device 102 into a standardized, single file. The standardized, single file may include a standardized database file including each of the processed transactions. Once the processed transactions (the automatic chargeback-eligible transactions) are aggregated and formatted 318, AC computing device 102 initiates 310 chargeback transactions for the automatic chargeback-eligible transactions. In initiating 310 the chargeback transactions, AC computing device 102 transmits the aggregated and formatted 318 file to a dispute case manager (DCM) associated with processing network….
With respect to the “parsing” limitation, the specification describes:
[0044] Database 106 may include a single database having separated sections or partitions, or may include multiple databases, each being separate from each other. In some embodiments, database 106 stores transaction data generated over the processing network including data relating to merchants, consumers, account holders, prospective customers, issuers, acquirers, and/or purchases made. In additional embodiments, database 106 also stores account data including at least one of a cardholder name, a cardholder address, one or more primary account numbers (PAN s ), other account identifiers, and transaction information. Database 106 may also store merchant information including a merchant identifier that identifies each merchant registered to use the network, and instructions for settling transactions including merchant bank account information. Database 106 may also store purchase data associated with items being purchased by a cardholder from a merchant, authorization request data, authorization messages, and clearing messages.
Please note the original specification discloses a single database having separated in sections/partitions or multiple databases separate from each other. But there is details on a technical process for which the single database is separated into sections or partitions.
The specification does not provide any process where the database is parsed using identifiers, rather the specification discloses:
[0006]… in the at least one memory, the identified automatically-reversible electronic instructions of the first type, (iv)
identify, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic
message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0007]…identifying, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0008]… identify, non-concurrently with the first type, a second type of the at least two types of automatically-reversible electronic instructions from the plurality of data sets by parsing the data records, wherein the second type of automatically-reversible electronic instructions includes one of an invalid identifier, an invalid first electronic message, and a flagged identifier,…
[0024]… identifying automatic chargeback-eligible transactions from the plurality of processed
transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching of the authorization
messages with the clearing messages,….
[0078]… Method 800 further includes matching 810 the plurality of authorization messages with the respective plurality of clearing messages for each processed transaction. Automatic chargeback-eligible transactions are
identified 815 from the plurality of processed transactions by parsing the transaction data and by the matching 810 of the authorization messages with the clearing messages….
The specification discloses that the intended use of the formatting transaction single data file into a standardized format is so that the single file can be “easily transmitted and read” (para 0020). Although the specification states that the transaction single standardized file formatted reduces processing power to process transactions and eliminates the need for human interaction to determine and verify chargeback transaction for transactions that satisfy certain rules. The specification is silent as to how merely formatting a file in a standardized format to be sent has any impact upon reducing power required to process chargeback transactions or eliminate the need for human interaction beyond the conclusory statement. This “reducing the processing power required...” and “eliminating the need for human interaction...” appears to be a statement without support. (para 0022). The specification states that the account identifiers and transaction data may be retrieved from ...network in a standardized format and/or single message, but fails to provide any details as to the implementation of the formatting as it relates to a technical process beyond the mention of a common format used in transaction processes (ISO 8583) . Para 0055 of the specification states that the transactions stored are aggregated and formatted into a standardized single file where once the file is aggregated and standardized the computing device initiates chargeback transactions. The formatting therefore, appears to be nothing more than processing data for use of the computer for the chargeback process. See also para 0041, para 0047, para 0063-0064, para 0071-0072
Evidence that the concept of manipulating received data by aggregating and formatting the data into a common/standard format is well known in the art, the examiner provides. US Pub No. 2019/0034591 A1 by Mossin et al (para 0067); US Pub No. 2018/0167281 A1 by Meenal et al –(para 0006 -background); US Pub No. 2017/00856345 A1 by Guney et al- (para 0075); US Pub No. 2015/0295751 A1 by Caison et al-(para 0037); US Pub No. 2014/0130119 A1 by Goldschlg et al-(para 0147); US Pub No. 2011/0166883 A1 by Palmer et al –(para 0098) which provides evidence that such data manipulation has been known and applied in the art for some time.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-3, 5-7 and 21 and these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 recites “store account identifier, parse account identifier, compare identifiers, determine identifier matches, store unmatched identifiers, and identify each transaction with a not-on-file account identifier as an eligible transaction- a business process and comparing and manipulating data see For data, mere “manipulation” of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (i.e., the extent to which (or how) the transformation imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps). A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76, 101 USPQ2d at 1967. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that this step was only a field-of-use limitation and did not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) . Dependent claim 3 is directed toward store identifiers, determine whether transactions valid authorization message, store identified transaction that do not include valid authorization and identify invalid authorization as eligible chargeback transactions- a business practice and sales activity. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward aggregating identified eligible chargeback separately in memory, - which is directed toward storing analyzed data- well known and understood and common business practice. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward determine account identifier and accounts standing status, store identifiers associated with bad standing accounts as bad identifiers, identify account bad standing account identifiers stored – a common business practice. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward receive transaction rules, identify eligible transaction and initiate transaction- a common business practice. Dependent claim 21 is directed toward reversing chargeback instructions of two types – sales activity
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 and 21 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to claims 8-14:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 8 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. Method claim 8 corresponds to system claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: Method claim 8 corresponds to system claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a computer network including network server, a centralized database and at least one processor in communication with a memory–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system for implementing a method will include a “processor” capable of performing the basic computer functions -of ““identify…set of data records satisfying …reversible/chargeback instructions”, “compare….a corresponding first …message to a respective …plurality of second …message”, “identify …portion of second set of data records as satisfying…second type of…reversible/chargeback instructions”, “generate a single data file by aggregating and formatting …into standardized data format…portion first and second data records” and “execute a reversal/chargeback of the processed data sets…by forwarding over the computer network the …single data file to the computer devices” without technical details -–is purely functional and generic.
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “parse using identifiers the centralized database to identify records, failing to provide details as to how identifiers parse the centralized database” as a technical process. The specification makes clear that the centralized database can have separate partitions but fails to provide any means for parsing the centralized database.
As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
Method claim 8 steps corresponds to system functions claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 9-14 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 8. Dependent claim 9 recites “storing identifies, parsing identifier, comparing received identifier, determining matches set of identifiers, storing received identifiers, identifying data records with invalid identifiers- risk mitigation and sales activity. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward storing received identifiers, determining data set includes valid message, storing identified data set do not include valid message as invalid, identifying each invalid message as third type of two types of chargebacks. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward storing account identifiers, determining whether each data set includes valid message that was processed, storing data, identifying invalid messages as first type- a business practice and sales activity. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward aggregating each chargeback for each type of two types of chargeback – a sales activity business practice of data accumulation. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward determining whether identifier in good/bad standing, storing identifiers and identifying bad standing identifiers as one of chargebacks- sales activity and risk mitigation. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward receiving rules, identifying two types of chargeback instructions from rule- business process and sales activity. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 8. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 9-14 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 15-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage media as in independent Claim 15 and the dependent claims. Such medias fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. Manufacture claim 16 corresponds to system claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward market activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: Manufacture instructions of claim 15 corresponds to the operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a non-transitory computer-readable media including computer executable instructions to cause a processor to perform the instructions–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every non-transitory computer-readable media for implementing an instruction will include a “processor” capable of performing the basic computer functions -of “identify…set of data records satisfying …reversible/chargeback instructions”, “compare….a corresponding first …message to a respective …plurality of second …message”, “identify …portion of second set of data records as satisfying…second type of…reversible/chargeback instructions”, “generate a single data file by aggregating and formatting …into standardized data format…portion first and second data records” and “execute a reversal/chargeback of the processed data sets…by forwarding over the computer network the …single data file to the computer devices” steps -
The processor claimed is applied to perform at a high level lacking technical details the operations “parse using identifiers the centralized database to identify records, failing to provide details as to how identifiers parse the centralized database” as a technical process. The specification makes clear that the centralized database can have separate partitions but fails to provide any means for parsing the centralized database.
As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The instructions of manufacture claim 15 corresponds to system functions claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 16-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 15. Dependent claim 16 recites “store account identifiers, parse account identifiers, compare account identifiers to legitimate account identifiers, determine account identifiers match, store unmatched account identifiers and identify each transaction with invalid identifiers-risk mitigation and transaction activity. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward store matched account identifiers as on file, determine whether transaction valid authorization, store identified data, identify message as third type of two types of chargeback instructions- transaction activity. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward aggregate data- data accumulation business process. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward determine where identifier stored being in good/bad standing, store received identifiers, identify each data set associated with bad identifiers- risk mitigation. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward receiving rules, identifying two types of chargeback from plurality of transactions based on rules, initiate reversal of chargeback- sales activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 15. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 16-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights