DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 05/04/2026.
Claim 1-20, 25, 27, 35, 37 and 41 were previously canceled.
Claims 21-24, 26, 28-34, 36, 38-40, and 42-44 have been examined.
Claims 21-24, 26, 28-34, 36, 38-40, and 42-44 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserted on page 16 that “[the] scheme to non-scheme format transformation is a technical data processing operation that enables interoperability between disparate payment networks. . .” However, the use of a central server to process the disparate banking system is not an improvement in technology. For instance, banks can use the standard CAMT (IS 20022) to perform cross-border and domestic payments. Hence, the server does not provide a technical improvement per se, but rather all the server does is to switch the incoming data to a standard format. Thus, the claim is leveraging the use of an existing technology to perform the transaction. Likewise, the encryption is used for security purpose and has been an existing technology in most data transmission. As a result, these limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. They are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, 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).
Similarly, under step 2B analysis, the limitations are also not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). They recite an abstract idea of “real-time handling, routing, and reconciliation of electronic transaction request”, pg. 19. They are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained. See detailed analysis.
With regard to the 103 rejection, while the Examiner indicated that further search and consideration are necessary, the Examiner did not indicate that the proposed amendment overcame the 103 rejections during an interview on 04/21/2026.
While there was no agreement with regard to withdrawing the 103 rejection during an interview, the amendment have been considered in light of the arguments. The applicant asserted on page 13 that “paragraph [0140] simply describes a convergence criterion for an expectation-maximization clustering algorithm, specifically, iteratively adjusting K mean and standard-deviation values . . .” & “the references do not teach or suggest ‘splitting, by the reconciliation system, the value of the transaction request across remaining of the plurality of paths based on routing configuration data . . .”. Furthermore, Lopes et al. (US 2021/0350382 A1) discloses: a system and a method of optimizing an organizational structure (OS) of an organization may include: receiving one or more data elements pertaining to the OS; receiving a value of one or more transaction parameters pertaining to one or more transactions conducted over one or more nodes of a computer network; perturbating a value of one or more OS elements; creating a simulated computer network based on the one or more perturbated values; for each network of the computer network and the simulated computer network, calculating a value of at least one OS performance parameter; and generating, based on the calculation, a suggestion for optimizing the OS, wherein the suggestion may include at least one perturbated OS element value.
Schnitt (US 11, 171, 911 B2) teaches A method and system for managing and automating the transactional processes between organizations that do business together using incompatible preexisting transactional systems. A centralized server manages transactions sent and received between the transactional systems of the organizations, and a software implemented messaging application communicates with the centralized server, both transmitting and receiving transactions from and to the transactional system of each organization, the result of which is improved automation of the transactional processes between organizations that do business together using incompatible preexisting transactional systems.
UR, Shmuel (WO 2021/033184 A1) discloses A system and a method of optimizing an organizational structure (OS) of an organization may include: receiving one or more data elements pertaining to the OS; receiving a value of one or more transaction parameters pertaining to one or more transactions conducted over one or more nodes of a computer network; perturbating a value of one or more OS elements; creating a simulated computer network based on the one or more perturbated values; for each network of the computer network and the simulated computer network, calculating a value of at least one OS performance parameter; and generating, based on the calculation, a suggestion for optimizing the OS, wherein the suggestion may include at least one perturbated OS element value.
Fery et al. (US 2006/0190732 A1) teaches: The invention relates to a method for verifying the authenticity of a postage indicium generated using a franking key and applied onto a mailpiece, whereby cryptographic information contained in the postage indicium is decrypted and used for verifying the authenticity of the postage indicium. According to the invention the method is characterized in that a data key (KD) is generated and transmitted from a central payment assurance system to local payment assurance systems.
None of the cited references, individually or in combination, teach or disclose the claim invention. Hence, it is not obvious to combine these references to teach the claimed invention. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
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 21-24, 26, 28-34, 36, 38-40, and 42-44 are directed to a system, a method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 21-24, 26, 28-34, 36, 38-40, and 42-44 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 21, 31, 38 are grouped together, Claim 31, for instance , recite in part, a method of receiving, by a reconciliation system, a notification for updating the transaction request from a transaction network; authenticating, by the reconciliation system, the notification by communicating with an authentication system; transforming, by the reconciliation system, the authenticated notification into a non-scheme specific format that is compatible for processing and communication; encrypting, by the reconciliation system, the transformed notification, wherein an encryption key for the encrypted notification is deleted from an encryption key cache upon exceeding a pre-determined time threshold and is replaced with a newly generated encryption key; transmitting, by the reconciliation system, the encrypted notification to a notification handler, wherein the notification handler communicates with a transaction query system to retrieve transaction data associated with the transaction request; receiving, by the reconciliation system, the transaction data from the notification handler; evaluating, by the reconciliation system, a value of the transaction request against predefined threshold corresponding to each of a plurality of paths, and dynamically excluding at least one of the plurality of paths for which the value exceeds the predefined threshold; splitting, by the reconciliation system, the value of the transaction request across remaining of the plurality of paths based on routing configuration data and path-specific preference weight; transmitting, by the reconciliation system, transaction status to a requestor system associated with the transaction request via an application programing interface call or a secure file transfer protocol message; and generating, based on the status message, a display of a transaction activity interface providing a real-time status of the transaction request. The limitations are directed to transaction reconciliation system – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, a reconciliation system, a security system, a tokenization system, a routing system, an authentication systema notification handler, a display, an application programming interface call and other generic computer components to perform receiving, authenticating, translating, and transmitting. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, translating, and transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 21, 31 and 38, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving, adding and communicating data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception on a generic computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device associated with the receiving a transaction update associated with a transaction request, authenticating the transaction update, translating the transaction update into a format, receiving transaction data associated with the transaction update, transmitting the transaction update to a transaction requestor is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 22, 32, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a process of generating a notification to show transaction updates . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as requestor system, authentication system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claims 23, 24, 33, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of authenticating transaction requests . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (requestor system, authentication system, a security system, a validation system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of searching data using hash algorithm . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (hash algorithm, secure system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claims 28, 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining an optimal path to route transaction based on certain conditions or configurations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (a machine learning, account ledger system, notification handler, a transaction system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of calculating optimal paths and splitting values among the paths and generating tokenized value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (tokenization system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) real-time updates of the transaction request. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (reconciliation system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving real-time feedback. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements (reconciliation system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Therefore, Claims 21-26, 28-36, and 38-40, 42 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights