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 .
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
3. Claims 19-38 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 19-25 are directed to computerized-method (i.e., process), claims 26-31 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., machine), and claims 32-38 are directed to a system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 19:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 19 recites the at least following limitations of “… transmitting, …, an authorization request associated … for approving an electronic transaction for a transaction value, wherein the electronic transaction is oriqinated with a payment vehicle, and wherein the electronic transaction includes a plurality of transaction data; in response to determining that the electronic transaction is declined for the transaction value, determining, …, a re- submission schedule for re-transmitting the authorization request based on one or more factors associated with the authorization request, the one or more factors including a bank identification number (BIN) and a reason response code (RRC) associated with the authorization request; and re-processing the authorization request accordinq to the re-submission schedule …, the authorization request includinq at least a portion of the plurality of transaction data of the electronic transaction, wherein the re-processinq comprises re-processinq the authorization request for an iterative reduction of the transaction value that is less than the transaction value and greater than a configurable threshold value unique … in each re-processed authorization request until approval is received … or until a reduced transaction value of a re-processed authorization request falls below the configurable threshold value.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for managing recurring authorization requests for payment transactions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 19 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of ““a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 26:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 26 recites the at least following limitations of “… transmitting, …, an authorization request associated … for approving an electronic transaction for a transaction value, wherein the electronic transaction is oriqinated with a payment vehicle, and wherein the electronic transaction includes a plurality of transaction data; in response to determining that the electronic transaction is declined for the transaction value, determining, …, a re- submission schedule for re-transmitting the authorization request based on one or more factors associated with the authorization request, the one or more factors including a bank identification number (BIN) and a reason response code (RRC) associated with the authorization request; and re-processing the authorization request accordinq to the re-submission schedule …, the authorization request includinq at least a portion of the plurality of transaction data of the electronic transaction, wherein the re-processinq comprises re-processinq the authorization request for an iterative reduction of the transaction value that is less than the transaction value and greater than a configurable threshold value unique … in each re-processed authorization request until approval is received … or until a reduced transaction value of a re-processed authorization request falls below the configurable threshold value.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for managing recurring authorization requests for payment transactions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 26 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “at least one processor”, “a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “at least one processor”, “a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 32:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 32 recites the at least following limitations of “… transmitting, …, an authorization request associated … for approving an electronic transaction for a transaction value, wherein the electronic transaction is oriqinated with a payment vehicle, and wherein the electronic transaction includes a plurality of transaction data; in response to determining that the electronic transaction is declined for the transaction value, determining, …, a re- submission schedule for re-transmitting the authorization request based on one or more factors associated with the authorization request, the one or more factors including a bank identification number (BIN) and a reason response code (RRC) associated with the authorization request; and re-processing the authorization request accordinq to the re-submission schedule …, the authorization request includinq at least a portion of the plurality of transaction data of the electronic transaction, wherein the re-processinq comprises re-processinq the authorization request for an iterative reduction of the transaction value that is less than the transaction value and greater than a configurable threshold value unique … in each re-processed authorization request until approval is received … or until a reduced transaction value of a re-processed authorization request falls below the configurable threshold value.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for managing recurring authorization requests for payment transactions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 32 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “at least one processor”, “a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “at least one processor”, “a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 20-25, 27-31, and 33-38 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 20, 27, and 33: simply provide further definition to “the iterative reduction of the transaction value” recited in independent claims 19, 26, and 32. Simply stating that wherein the iterative reduction of the transaction value comprises a reduction by an incremental percentage of a predefined transaction value do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 21, 28, and 34: simply provide further definition to “the iterative reduction of the transaction value” recited in independent claims 19, 26, and 32. Simply stating that wherein the iterative reduction of the transaction value comprises a stepwise reduction by a unit value do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 22, 29, and 35: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: determining, by the payment processing computing system, the re-submission schedule based on a partial authorization of the electronic transaction and a timing of the electronic transaction), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 19, 26, and 32. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the payment processing computing system amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the payment processing computing system) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 23, 30, and 36: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: receiving an authorization result from the issuer processor; and updating a dataset of historical processing results using the received authorization result), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 19, 26, and 32. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the issuer processor amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the issuer processor) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 24, 31, and 37: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: transmitting, by the payment processing computing system to a point of sale device, indication of an approved authorization when the issuer processor approves the authorization request), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 19, 26, and 32. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the payment processing computing system, the issuer processor amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the payment processing computing system, the issuer processor) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 25: simply provide further definition to “determining the re-submission schedule” recited in dependent claim 22. Simply stating that wherein determining the re-submission schedule comprises: identifying, by the payment processing computing system, a rule set associated with the electronic transaction do not amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the payment processing computing system).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the payment processing computing system) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 38: simply provide further definition to “the electronic transaction” recited in independent claim 22. Simply stating that wherein the electronic transaction is one of a series of recurring transactions of a predefined transaction amount do not amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the payment processing computing system).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the payment processing computing system) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
7. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 19-38 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully traverses the characterizations of the claims made in the Office Action and the Advisory Action. Nevertheless, to facilitate prosecution and without acquiescing to the rejection, Applicant has further amended independent claims 19, 26, and 32. For example, amended claim 19 recites, inter alia: (transmitting, by a payment processing computing system, an authorization request associated with a merchant system to an issuer processor for approving an electronic transaction for a transaction value, wherein the electronic transaction is originated with a payment vehicle, and … each re-processed authorization request until approval is received by the payment processing computing system or until a reduced transaction value of a re-processed authorization request falls below the configurable threshold value … Contrary to what the Office Action and the Advisory Action allege, the claims do not recite an abstract idea … Therefore, the disclosed system and methods are necessarily rooted in computer technology, in particular, in the realm of computer networks (e.g., payment networks). … the claims therefore do not recite an abstract idea (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-3).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 19, 26, and 32 at issue recite limitations as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for managing recurring authorization requests for payment transactions). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 19-38 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant submits the amended claims do recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the amended claims at least recite elements directed to transmitting, by a payment processing computing system, an authorization request associated with a merchant system to an issuer processor for approving an electronic transaction for a transaction value … processed authorization request until approval is received by the payment processing computing system or until a reduced transaction value of a re-processed authorization request falls below the configurable threshold value. Independent claims 26 and 32 have been similarly amended as independent claim 19. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of independent claims 19, 26, and 32 under § 101 be withdrawn. Further, as claims 20-25, 27-31, and 33-38 depend from claims 19, 26, and 32 respectively, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of dependent claims 20-25, 27-31, and 33-38 be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 3-5).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended independent claims 19, 26, and 32 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the amended independent claims 19, 26, and 32 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a payment processing computing system”, “a merchant system”, “an issuer processor”, and “a payment network in electronic communication”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above. Examiner also notes that dependent claims 20-25, 27-31, and 33-38 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 since they depend from the rejected independent claims 19, 26, and 32.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
9. The best prior art of record, Sellen et al. (US Patent Publication 2009/0024527 A1), hereinafter, “Sellen”, does not discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application claim limitations of "iteratively re-processing the authorization request according to the re-submission schedule across a payment network in electronic communication with the payment processing computing system, the authorization request including at least a portion of the plurality of transaction data of the electronic transaction, wherein the re-processing comprises re-processing the authorization request for an iterative reduction of the transaction value that is less than the transaction value and greater than a configurable threshold value unique to the merchant system in each re-processed authorization request until approval is received by the payment processing computing system or until a reduced transaction value of a re-processed authorization request falls below the configurable threshold value."
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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 Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696