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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed July 21, 2025 in which claims 1, 9-11 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 13 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 2, 6-7, 12 and 16-17 have been previously canceled. Claims 21-26 have been added. Thus, claims 1, 4, 8-11, 14, and 18-26 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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, 4, 8-11, 14, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 1.
The claims 1, 4, 8-10 and 21-23 are directed to a method, and claims 11, 14, 18-20 and 24-26 are directed to a system which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 11 recites : a processor; a memory device; and a computer readable medium coupled to the processor, the computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, to implement a method comprising: transmitting, to an authorizing computer, a first key for accessing an authorization API of a plurality of APIs managed by the network computer; transmitting, to the authorizing computer, an authorization request message for a total amount for an installment plan, thereby causing authorizing and clearing of the total amount; receiving, from a resource provider computer, a settlement request associated with an installment plan and a total amount associated with a user account; transmitting, to the resource provider computer, a settlement response associated with the installment plan and the total amount, wherein the authorizing computer transmits an authorization response back to the network computer via the authorization API with the first key or a derivative thereof; configuring, via a convert to installments API, an installment record, the installment record comprising a plurality of installment times, wherein the installment record comprises a temporary account stored to the network computer in association with an installment plan identifier and associated interaction data including a starting balance of the total amount, and wherein the temporary account is a virtual account ledger for record keeping; determining, via a scheduler API, a clearing house and original transaction status; and based on the status and the occurrence of an installment time, of the plurality of installment times in the installment record, transmitting, to the authorizing computer via the authorization API, installment data associated with the installment record, wherein the authorizing computer transmits an installment payment request to a user responsive to receiving the installment data from the network computer; blocking the user account for a block amount equal to the total amount; receiving, by the network computer, confirmation of an installment payment completed responsive to the installment payment request; responsive to receiving the confirmation, updating the installment record, including reducing the block amount by an amount of the installment payment to generate an updated block amount; transmitting, by the network computer to the authorizing computer, a settlement file indicating payment of the amount of the installment payment; and providing, by the network computer, to a user device of the user, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) displaying the total amount, the amount of the installment, and a remaining amount. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions. The claim recites a system for processing the installment plan. The installment plan involves engaging in a financial transaction which is fulfilling the agreement in the form of contracts and hence it is a Commercial Interaction. In addition, these limitations can also be classified under Mental Processes as these limitations relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and use of a pen and paper). The claim also recites a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1-Fig. 3, [0087], [0090], [0137]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, 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 claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claim 1 and hence the claim 1 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 11.
Dependent claims 4, 8-10, 14 and 18-26 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 4, 8-10, 14 and 18-26 do not recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claim 1 and claim 11.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 4, 8-11, 14, and 18-26 are ineligible.
Prior art
3. The prior art rejection was withdrawn in the Non-final Rejection dated July 11, 2024 based on the claim amendments. An updated search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues that (pages 8-10), “The Claims do not Recite an Abstract Idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained in the 101 analysis above, the steps of the claim, when collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain methods of organizing human activity commercial or legal interactions. The claim recites a system for processing the installment plan. The installment plan involves engaging in a financial transaction which is fulfilling the agreement in the form of contracts and hence it is a Commercial Interaction. In addition, these limitations can also be classified under Mental Processes as these limitations relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and use of a pen and paper). The claim also recites a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
6. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that (pages 10-16), “The Claims Recite Elements Which Integrate a Practical Application”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. All the APIs have been described at a high level of generality. The way the key interacts with the API is also recited at a high level of generality. API is more of an idea of a solution or outcome. The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Examiner would also like to point out that an application program interface for extracting and processing information was an abstract idea in Content Extraction (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The specification describes the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1-Fig. 3, [0087], [0090]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The steps of transmitting and receiving are merely insignificant extra-solution activities. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Also, the combination of abstract ideas is also abstract. The additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device and a Graphical User Interface are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The sequence of operations simply implements the steps of the abstract idea and does not provide improvements to the functioning of the computing system. Reduction in computational resources devoted to generating and processing transaction-related messages is a reduction in business operations and amounts to an improvement in abstract idea, not a technical improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claimed steps are simply using the generic technology in the form of the authorization API, an installments API and a scheduler API to improve the abstract idea. Hence, Ancora technologies v HTC America has no applicability.
7. Applicant further argues that (pages 12-13) the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Uniloc v. LG Electronics USA, INC.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Uniloc. Uniloc dealt with broadcasting between primary and secondary stations in a communication network. In order to reduce latency arising from delay in receiving polling response from a secondary station, the claims added a data field to the polling inquiring message so that inquiring and polling response would occur simultaneously. The Court found that this constituted a technical advance because of the manner of transmission of data resulted in reduced response time by peripheral devices. On the other hand, the current invention does not take place in the realm of technology such as broadcast communications and does not even purport to achieve any technical advances similar to reducing communication latency between two stations in a network.
As discussed above and in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are not directed to any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Thus, Uniloc is not applicable.
8. Applicant further argues that (pages 12-13) the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Enfish.
The Examiner also does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database). Whereas the Applicant’s invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Thus, Enfish is not applicable.
9. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2B, (pages 16-17), Applicant states that, “Even if the Claims were Directed to an Abstract Idea, They Would Include "Significantly More”
One of the guidelines issued by the Office to determine if the claims recite additional elements which are not well understood, routine or conventional and hence, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, is the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter).
According to the Berkheimer memo,
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The claim simply applies the abstract idea using generic computer elements as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements in the claim are a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file. As per the rejection above, the specification describes the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a computer readable medium, a resource provider computer, an authorizing computer, the network computer, authorization API, APIs, an installments API, a scheduler API, a user device, a Graphical User Interface and a settlement file to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1-Fig. 3, [0087], [0090]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. As explained above in Step 2A, Prong 2, API is more of an idea of a solution or outcome. The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
10. Applicant's arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, page 16), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, the rejection of pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is hereby maintained by the Examiner.
Examiner Request
11. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
October 10, 2025
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694