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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated March 06, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 8-9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 18 were previously cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
4. Claim objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 includes a limitation that states “…through a transaction manger in the second region…” This limitation contains a typing error in that “manger” is being used instead of the correct term which should be manager.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8) and a machine (claims 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of directing service requests to be placed in a particular setting to complete the transaction by:
receiving,…, a service request from a client, via a service, in a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) protocol,…,located in a first region;
determining,…, a second region for processing the service request, based on the account number of the account in the service request, at least one rule for the second region, which defines an account range, and the account number being within the account range, the second region being physically different than the first region, the at least one rule being consistent with one or more regulations related to local control and/or processing of data relevant to the service request in the second region
based on the determined second region, automatically:
identifying, by the,…, a switch of the processing…,, which is physically located in the second region;
translating, by the,…, the service request based on an event driven protocol accepted by the identified switch of the processing,…,; and
directing, by the,…, the translated service request consistent with the event driven protocol to the identified switch of the processing,…, in real-time, whereby the service is performed in the second region, through a transaction manger in the second region, without regard to the service request being received in the first region; and
transmitting, by the,…, to the service, an indication of the second region, whereby the service is informed of the service request being in the second region.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., directing service requests to be placed in a particular setting to complete the transaction).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claim 9 is nearly identical to claim 1. However, claim 9 includes several additional elements such as a “processor” that are not found in claim 1. This element is being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0040] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2–8 and 10-17 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 10 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the service request entails. Dependent claims 3 and 11 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe how to determine the second region. Dependent claims 4 and 12 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the client is a merchant. Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the regions are different countries. Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe using rules to the service request. Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the rule links the second region to an identifier associated with an account of the client. Dependent claims 8 and 16 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe clearing a transaction based on the service request and notifying a first institution of the cleared transaction. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes receiving a second service request and determining a third region to complete the transaction.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Johnston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,514,412) teaches a cross border computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time. Although the invention in Johnston describes the use of payments being conducted between two different regions, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
“receiving, by a switch interface computing device, a service request from a client, via a service, the switch interface computing device located in a first region;
determining, by the switch interface computing device, a second region, based on the service request and at least one rule, the second region different than the first region;
based on the determined second region, automatically identifying, by the switch interface computing device, a switch in the second region and directing, by the switch interface computing device, the service request to the identified switch located in the second region, in real-time, whereby the service is performed in the second region, without
regard to the service request being received in the first region;; and
transmitting, by the switch interface computing device, to the service, an indication of the second region, whereby the service informed of the service request being in the second region.”
However, Johnston does not teach that a switch interface computing device based on a certain rule directs the service request to then proceed in a second region after the service request originated in the first region.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “As amended herein, the service request is specifically recited as being consistent with the RPC protocol, such as, for example, the gRPC protocol (which is an open-source framework), whereby input, again, is consistent with the requestor (or client) preference and then later translated, within the processing network, to be directed to the appropriate switch – again obviating the responsibility for routing decisions. This is a technical advancement in requesting and receiving services.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0040] of the specification). However, it is unclear how this “switch interface computing device” is rooted in a specific architectural component. This appears to be a business decision that being made based “rules-based decentralization of services” and this is not a technological improvement. It is also unclear how data is being transformed from an RPC protocol to an event driven protocol.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights