DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
With regard to the 101 rejection, the Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. On page 12, the applicant asserted that “the claims do not recite an abstract idea . . .”, but the method is directed to making a transaction request based on the scheme or setting format. The use of a computing to perform the determination the transaction based on settings is not an improvement to the technology but rather an improvement to the business method.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the Applicant asserted “the amended claims do recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application . . . ”. The limitations here tend to leverage the use of generic computing device to perform an abstract idea. The limitations, hence, are not indicative of integration into a practical application: 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).
Likewise, under step 2B consideration, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-20 are directed to a method, a system, and a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1-20 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 1, 8, 15 are grouped together. Claim 8 recites, for instance, A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for executing a real-time transaction, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, by a processor of a routing system in electronic communication with the real-time transaction system, a transaction request made by a user; authenticating the transaction request using a predetermined protocol called through an API of an authentication system associated with the real-time transaction system; identifying, by the processor of the routing system and in real-time, user preferences associated with the transaction request and scheme capabilities associated with one or more transaction schemes; providing by the processor of the routing system, the user preferences and the scheme capabilities associated with the one or more transaction schemes to a routing decision model configured to determine an optimal scheme for the transaction request in real-time based on the user preferences and the scheme capabilities, wherein the routing decision model :determines that a value associated with the transaction request exceeds a predetermined threshold of at least one transaction scheme of the one or more transaction schemes for processing the transaction request; and split the transaction request across a plurality of payment rails for processing according to a remainder of the one or more transaction schemes excluding the at least one transaction scheme based on the determining; receiving, at a transaction processor associated with the real-time transaction system and via an event-topic stream a generated status message for the transaction request, wherein the generated status message is in a scheme-specific format; converting, using a scheme notification system associated with the real-time transaction system, the generated status message in the scheme-specific format into a generic non-scheme specific format; and generating by the transaction processor and using the generated status message in the generic non-scheme specific format, a transaction activity user interface including a real-time status of the transaction request The limitations are directed to processing transaction based on schemes – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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 routing system, a transaction processor, a scheme notification system, a real-time transaction system to perform determining, converting, and transmitting. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, converting, 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.
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 1, 8, 15 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 and identifying data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There are 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). Additionally, the limitation of sending a request or message over network is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. 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). Given the above reasons, the system to transacting a financial request 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.
The dependent claims 2, 9, 16 have been analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claim(s) recite(s) transaction schemes. 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) recite scheme execution date does/do not include additional elements (such as a transaction processor, 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).
The dependent claims 3, 10 have been analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claim(s) recite(s) user preference. 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) recite user preferences such as desired transaction date does/do not include additional elements (such as a transaction processor, 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).
The dependent claims 4, 11 and 17 have been analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims recite certain metrics. 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) recite associating with the one or more transaction schemes to routing decision model and does/do not include additional elements (such as a transaction processor, 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).
The dependent claims 5, 12 and 18 have been analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims recite an abstract idea of determining an optimal scheme. 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) recite identifying whether the transaction request is domestic transaction does/do not include additional elements (such as a transaction processor, 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).
The dependent claims 6, 13 and 19 have been analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims recite an abstract idea of receiving feedbacks and adjusting schemes based on 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) recite adjusting the determination of optimal scheme does/do not include additional elements (such as a transaction processor, 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).
The dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 have been analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims recite an abstract idea of receiving feedbacks and adjusting schemes based on 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) recite receiving a trained mode and does/do not include additional elements (such as machine learning model, feedback) 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).
Conclusion
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
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights