DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 26 June 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20, 22, 25-26, 29, 32-33, 36 and 39 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 21, 28 and 35 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, 34-35, 37-38 and 40-45 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Section 101 Rejections
Step 2A: Prong One
Applicant argues that Claim 21 is eligible under Step 2A Prong One because the claim does not recite an abstract idea, highlighting the generating, analyzing, dynamically selecting and transferring steps. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Step 2A: Prong Two
Applicant argues that the noted account-type-dependent selection provides a concrete technological benefit and improves the speed and efficiency of electronic settlement processing by leveraging the technical characteristics of different account types to optimize the transfer channel used for each settlement account. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computing components in the instant application to increase the speed or efficiency of the recited judicial exception does not afford the claim eligibility.
Applicant argues that the steps identified on page 16 of the remarks go beyond merely reciting instructions and instead recite computer operations that restructure how settlement logic is stored, accessed, and automatically applied at runtime and accordingly, applies any alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way that improves the functioning of the electronic settlement processing. Applicant further cites sections of the specification that highlight their asserted improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement (as explained above) comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The recitation of generic computing components to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility.
Step 2B
Applicant argues under the assumption that Examiner took the position that several components in the claims were identified as well-understood, routine, or conventional. This is incorrect. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Only elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity must be further re-evaluated under Step 2B as to whether or not they constitute well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Section 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks at pages 22-24, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 26 March 2026 has been withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 18 June 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,704,633, US 10,915,871, US 9,965,749, and US 8,700,525 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 21, 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, 34-35, 37-38 and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for variable settlement accounts. These are a process, machine, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 21, 28 and 35:
Claims 21, 28 and 35:
“receiving,…, information identifying the settlement accounts associated with the merchant…;”
“receiving,…, the settlement rules corresponding to the settlement accounts…;”
“generating,…,a rules database…to store the settlement rules as nested conditional rules, wherein each nested conditional rule defines an amount threshold and a settlement frequency;”
“receiving,…, an electronic transfer of funds into a pooled account associated with the merchant;”
“analyzing,…,the settlement rules…”
“dynamically selecting,…, for each settlement account, a transfer technique from among a plurality of transfer techniques based at least in part on a type of the respective settlement account, wherein the plurality of transfer techniques includes an intrabank transfer and an automated clearing house (ACH) transfer;”
“transferring,…, the funds from the pooled account to the settlement accounts, based on the settlement rules, and based on the dynamically selected transfer technique.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device”, “processor”, “memory”, or “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a device of an acquirer processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when receiving and applying settlement rules during a settlement. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following additional (or similar) elements:
Claims 21, 28 and 35:
“causing, by a device of an acquirer processor, a display of a user interface by a merchant computing device of a merchant, wherein the interface includes an account summary portion and an account rules portion;”
“causing, by the device of the acquirer processor and via the account summary portion of the user interface, a display of an account type field that permits the merchant to select respective account types of settlement accounts, and an account identifier field that permits the merchant to enter respective account identifiers of the settlement accounts;”
“…by the device of the acquirer processor and from the merchant computing device of the merchant… based on the merchant inputting the information identifying the settlement accounts via the account summary portion of the user interface;”
“causing, by the device of the acquirer processor and via the account rules portion of the user interface, a display of one or more fields that permit the merchant to enter one or more directives for respective settlement rules for the respective settlement accounts, and an account field that permits the merchant to select the respective settlement account to which the respective settlement rules are applicable;”
“…by the device of the acquirer processor and from the merchant computing device… based on the merchant inputting the settlement rules via the account rules portion of the user interface;”
“…by the acquirer processor…in a computer-readable memory…”
“…by a settlement engine of the acquirer processor…stored in the rules database;”
“…by the settlement engine of the acquirer processor…”
“…by the device of the acquirer processor…”
Claim 28:
“a memory configured to store instructions;”
“a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:”
Claim 35:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a device of an acquirer processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:”
The computer components (devices, processors, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic devices, generic processors and generic storages) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The displaying step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally displaying) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of a user interface is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
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.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for displaying various information) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 23-24, 27, 30-31, 34, 37-38 and 40-45 recite processes that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has performed a search but has determined that it would not have been obvious to combine the cited references to yield the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sellen et al. (US 2004/0236692 A1) discloses managing funds in an account on behalf of a merchant utilizing rules to manage transactions into those which are more likely to settle.
Bhosle et al. (US 2013/0232067 A1) discloses a graphical user interface with at least first and second portions whereby a user may be displayed account information (i.e. account summary portion and account fields) as well as rules information (i.e. rules portion).
Varghese (US 2009/0089869 A1) discloses using rules that define amount thresholds and determining if user accounts are regularly used to transfer amounts over said threshold (i.e. frequency) and discloses rules may be stored as nested conditional rules.
Buchanan et al. (US 2010/0100424 A1) discloses displaying a spending comparison tool which displays user spending (i.e. past settlements) during a particular month (i.e. defined period) as a bar graph indicating amount settled over said month alongside average financial information.
Hanson et al. (WO 2013/003372 A1) discloses user interfaces for managing accounts and business rules.
White et al. (WO 2011146932 A1) discloses establishment of transaction rules for transaction processing.
Authors et al. (“Canadian Payments Landscape”) discloses establishment of payment and regulatory rules for electronic payments.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights