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 .
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks received 06/17/2026.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended.
Claims 23, 30, and 37 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-43 are pending and have been examined.
This action is final, necessitated by Applicant amendment.
Summary of Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejections of claims 21-40 drawn to written description issues pertaining to prior claim limitations “…translating … based on the plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances…” are withdrawn in view of the amendments received.
Summary of Claim Rejections
Claims 21-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner’s Note on Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the term “pseudo-networks” may include, under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification:
Sets of attribute information corresponding to routing cost rules of payment networks, and their associated costs (e.g., exempt vs. regulated status and standard vs. preferred rates, and their associated costs), per at least ¶36 and ¶79 of Applicant Specification: “[¶36] … "Pseudo-networks" may be artificial networks … configured to simulate routing options within the payments environment. Specifically, the disclosed embodiments involve generating pseudo-networks mimicking actual payment networks, and generating and updating routing tables reflecting forecasted routing transaction costs to ensure desired transaction volumes are being achieved while minimizing acceptance costs. … [¶79] … pseudo-networks reflecting potential alternative acquirer processors and networks on which to route a transaction. In some embodiments, pseudo-networks may be generated based on exempt vs. regulated status and standard vs. preferred rates.”1).
Information reflecting potential alternative acquirer processors and payment network combinations on which to route transactions, e.g., based on exempt vs. regulated status and standard vs. preferred rates attributes routing cost rules impacting associated costs – see Fig. 3B, ref 255:
PNG
media_image1.png
101
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 21-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-43 have been fully considered but are not persuasive; see “Response to Arguments” section below.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims not reciting an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I. Additionally, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims providing additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem and include additional elements that are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity2. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong I Arguments
With respect to Applicant arguments asserting the claims do not recite an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I3, examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Applicant supporting arguments pointing to the additional elements for step 2A Prong I analysis is not convincing. Regardless of Applicant’s asserted basis for eligibility drawn to the computer components / additional elements, the examiner fails to see how the positively recited limitations such as “…routing a transaction …” are not recitations of fundamental economic practice. The Examiner further fails to see as to how the claims are merely involving an exception, as the claims, when read as a whole, clearly recite claim limitations including preliminary steps of receiving transaction routing criteria, determining a least cost route based on possible combinations constituting payment routes, and routing a transaction according to those results. The Examiner does not contend that the machine learning and processors are themselves abstract. However, the mere inclusion of claim limitations drawn to computer components does not necessarily preclude the same aforementioned claims from being considered to recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis – see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), emphasis added: ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This fact is evident in light of the sequence of steps performed during the revised Alice/Mayo test – see MPEP §2106.04(II)(A) showing a visual summary of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
Additionally, examiner respectfully disagrees that certain bolded elements listed within pages 13-14 of Applicant Remarks are additional elements, and respectfully submits they are recitation of an abstract:
“…generating one or more pseudo-networks … each pseudo-network including a modification of a payment network to simulate routing options accounting for a change in regulatory exemption status or a change in preferred status…”
“…predicting a plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances for a plurality of …[transaction routes] …”
“…translating message formats and transmission parameters to accommodate different messaging format requirements …”
Examiner generally notes that the pseudo-networks, under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, is merely information capturing legally-based route characteristics impacting routing costs (e.g., “[a] change in regulatory exemption status or a change in preferred status”)
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I are not persuasive (Step 2A Prong I: Yes – the claims recite an abstract idea).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong II Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant arguments4 that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field5 and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem – see MPEP 2106.05(a): “… 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 … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient”. Hence, as the purported improvements discussed in ¶¶33-34, 78 of Applicant specification are drawn to abstract financial and/or business considerations, it is not indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP § 2106.05(a)) under Alice/Mayo analysis.
The additional elements “…pseudo-networks corresponding to the one or more eligible … networks…”, “…pseudo-network”6, “…and the one or more pseudo-networks…”, “…(payment) networks…”, “…trained machine learning…”, “…(transaction routing) table…” of claim 1, the additional elements “A device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:”, “…pseudo-networks corresponding to the one or more eligible … networks…”, “…pseudo-network”, “…and the one or more pseudo-networks…”, “…networks…”, “…trained machine learning…”, and “…(transaction routing) table…” of claim 28, and the additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:”, “…pseudo-networks corresponding to the one or more eligible … networks…”, “…pseudo-network”, “…and the one or more pseudo-networks…”, “…networks…”, “…trained machine learning…”, and “…(transaction routing) table…” of claim 35 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
Examiner respectfully fails to see as to how the instant claim limitations provide any particular technological solution to a technological problem, as the instant claims do not reflect any technological solution addressing technological problems concerned with the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – what is addressed is how to determine a least cost route for a transaction, without any technical details sufficient to indicate an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. What is improved is the business method for cost-analysis, as the steps determine a least cost route for a transaction considering more factors, and it is only achieved by merely incorporating a machine learning model, generic cost considerations corresponding to network routing costs, and computer hardware at a high degree of generality, so as to carry out the abstract idea recited (MPEP §2106.05(f)); this is not indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem and, accordingly, does not point to the additional elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. As an example, Applicant’s specification and claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the aspects drawn to the pseudo-networks as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims and specification do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed pseudo-networks are generated, of which appear to simply be information associated with routing costs (e.g., “[a] change in regulatory exemption status or a change in preferred status”).
Arguendo, even if the pseudo-networks are determined to necessarily correspond to an additional element, they are only used as a mere stand-in for a hypothetical transaction route to be analyzed within the context of least-cost routing based on cost related attributes at a high degree of generality (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Applicant’s supporting arguments drawn towards “…enabling interoperability across disparate payment systems” are not persuasive, as they are (A) cursory, (B) fail to provide sufficient reasons or rationales as to why Applicant’s claims differ in this manner from any other generic payment network technology, and (C) do not provide sufficient details so to why this purported improvement is necessarily met by the additional elements of Applicant’s claims (and conventional systems are not), beyond highly generic and relatively non-descript limitations drawn towards translating. The overall thrust of the argument is not persuasive in view of prior art showing that interoperability across payment systems is generally known prior to the relevant technological environment (e.g., payment networks). For example, see United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20120221468 A1 (Kumnick) at ¶3, disclosing it is generally known that merchants accepting payment via a multitude of payment methods need to format their messages to acquirer-specific specifications (¶3). Similarly, see United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170308880 A1 (Phillips), disclosing in background section (¶3): “In terms of recording and tracking the transactions, conventional transactions at … [payment] terminals may not be isolated as such, and instead may be identified as attended POS transactions by Issuers, Acquirers and card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Conventionally, merchants set the codes associated with attended POS transactions according to Acquirer instructions, which are based on standards established by card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Merchants send data to Acquirers, who reformat the data into the MasterCard or other card format.”
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as in the 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application), as the focus of the claims is not an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea of least-cost transaction routing that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claims do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract least-cost transaction routing within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Accordingly, in view of the analysis performed with respect to steps 2A Prong I and 2A Prong II, the examiner respectfully maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A (Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea of least-cost transaction routing).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2B Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2B and respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept for the following reasons:
The same reasons identified in the examiner’s step 2A Prong II analysis and subsequent supporting rationales (in the section immediately above) are generally applicable to step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and still indicate the additional elements as being merely applied and generally limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological solution to a technological problem. See MPEP § 2106.05: “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.”
The well-understood, routine, and conventional rationale must pertain to involvement of the additional elements / components outside the abstract idea – not the abstract idea itself. see TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C. 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748, underline and bold emphasis added: “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. I.e., The details of the abstract idea indicated by Applicant in remarks are an insufficient basis for patent eligibility under the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” rationale – see also the following case law and MPEP cites:
Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151:
“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” (emphasis omitted).
BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
MPEP § 2106.05:
“…An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”.
Case law makes clear that a lack of an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not confer patent eligibility to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”). See also MPEP § 2106.05 (“Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”);
Arguendo, in order to further support the aforementioned determinations that the aforementioned additional elements drawn to machine learning are merely applied7 , do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field under steps 2A Prong II and 2B, and that the additional elements themselves do not amount to anything that is beyond what is well-understood, routine and conventional, examiner notes the following evidentiary support8:
the following prior art indicating or otherwise suggesting the claimed “applying a trained machine learning model…wherein the trained machine learning model determines factor weights that are applied to one or more parameters …” as well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the technical field of machine learning (i.e., not an improvement to the technical field of machine learning):
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150170024 A1 (Chatterjee), disclosing, in ¶3: “Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational ... ANNs generally include sets of adaptive weights, i.e., numerical parameters that are tuned by a learning algorithm. The adaptive weights are, conceptually, connection strengths between "neurons," which are activated during training and prediction.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170344910 A1 (Wu), disclosing it is common for certain machine learning implementations (e.g., neural networks and random forest) to use millions of weight parameters (¶8).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170061282 A1 (Ryskamp), disclosing, in ¶2: “Traditional approaches to artificial intelligence and/or machine learning rely on random convergence of a series of weights. Such approaches require large amounts of computational resources (e.g., processing power) and/or time resources, often both.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140180994 A1 (Lobera), suggesting in ¶66, that adjusting parameters and weights of parameters is common to machine learning technology, as it states “it is common to say to `adjust a parameter`, or to `adjust the weights` of a set of parameters within the machine learning … literature.”.
the following prior art indicating or otherwise suggesting the claimed “…translating message formats and transmission parameters …” as well-understood, routine and conventional activity for payment network environments when network entities are managing merchant transactions (i.e., not a technological improvement in payment network environments):
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170308880 A1 (Phillips), disclosing in background section (¶3): “In terms of recording and tracking the transactions, conventional transactions at … [payment] terminals may not be isolated as such, and instead may be identified as attended POS transactions by Issuers, Acquirers and card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Conventionally, merchants set the codes associated with attended POS transactions according to Acquirer instructions, which are based on standards established by card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Merchants send data to Acquirers, who reformat the data into the MasterCard or other card format.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20120221468 A1 (Kumnick), disclosing in in background section (¶3): “There are many acquirers that work with payment processing networks to facilitate transactions. Some of these acquirers have specific guidelines and standards for the format of the authorization logs and captures files that they receive from various entities in the payment networks. For example, if a merchant wants to be able to accept payment from consumers using a multitude of payment methods, each from a different acquirer using a different payment processing network, the merchant must adapt their systems, establish a connection between its own systems and the systems of each acquirer, and format its messages to the specifications of each acquirer.”
With respect to Applicant argument arguing that the present claims are not obvious in view of the prior art of record, and accordingly patent eligible, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of the argument and fails to find argument convincing. Case law makes clear that a lack of an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not confer patent eligibility to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”). See also MPEP § 2106.05 (“Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”);
Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. The claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by merely invoking computers as tools, and do not provide any particular improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field9 (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h), 2106.04(d)(1)). Merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself, as indicated by BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); (Step 2B: No, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).
Hence, for the reasons listed above, as well as the reasons provided in 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept10 under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and maintains the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test11. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, each of the claims are either directed to a method, system, or product of manufacture. Therefore, each of the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
In light of step 2A Alice/Mayo analysis performed on the instant claims12, claims 21-40 have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea of least-cost transaction routing. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified method claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 21 is analogous to claims 28 and 35 under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 21 (below) are similarly applied to claims 28 and 35, mutatis mutandis.
When analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 21-40 each recite a method of organizing human activity,13 because independent claims 21, 28, and 35 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“21. A method comprising:
receiving transaction-related information from a merchant;
extracting transaction routing criteria from the transaction-related information; identifying one or more eligible payment … [paths] based on the transaction routing criteria;
identifying one or more eligible acquirer processors14 based on the transaction routing criteria;
generating one or more … [data]…, each [data] including a modification of a payment … [route] to simulate routing options accounting for a change in regulatory exemption status or a change in preferred status.
applying a … model for predicting a plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances for a plurality of combinations of the one or more acquirer processors and the one or more eligible payment… [providers] and the one or more … [data modifying payment routes], wherein the … model determines factor weights that are applied to one or more parameters of one or more transactions for generating the prediction;
… translating message formats and transmission parameters to accommodate different messaging format requirements between the merchant and the one or more eligible acquirer processors;
determining a least cost combination among the plurality of combinations based on the plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances;
updating a transaction routing … according to the least cost combination; and
routing a transaction from the merchant according to the updated transaction routing …”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, these are recitations of fundamental economic practices of performing least-cost transaction routing, including preliminary data gathering steps of (A) receiving transaction-related information from a merchant, (B) extracting transaction routing criteria from the transaction-related, (C), identifying one or more eligible acquirer processors based on the transaction routing criteria, (D) modifying routing criteria (e.g., the pseudo-network data acting to serve as a change in regulatory exemption status or a change in preferred status), (E) applying a model for predicting a plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances, (F) translating message formats and transmission parameters between the merchant and the one or more eligible acquirer processors based on the plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances (G) determining a least cost combination among a plurality of possible paths, (H) updating the transaction routing to be used, and (I) routing the transaction from the merchant according to the updated transaction routing Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 21, 28, and 35 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test:
The additional elements “…pseudo-networks corresponding to the one or more eligible … networks…”, “…pseudo-network”, “…and the one or more pseudo-networks…”, “…(payment) networks…”, “…trained machine learning…”, “…(transaction routing) table…” of claim 1, the additional elements “A device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:”, “…pseudo-networks corresponding to the one or more eligible … networks…”, “…pseudo-network”, “…and the one or more pseudo-networks…”, “…networks…”, “…trained machine learning…”, and “…(transaction routing) table…” of claim 28, and the additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:”, “…pseudo-networks corresponding to the one or more eligible … networks…”, “…pseudo-network”, “…and the one or more pseudo-networks…”, “…networks…”, “…trained machine learning…”, and “…(transaction routing) table…” of claim 35 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example:
The instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed machine learning model is specifically employed “…for predicting a plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances for a plurality of combinations of the one or more acquirer processors and the one or more eligible payment networks, …” beyond merely stating “… applying a trained machine learning model…wherein the trained machine learning model determines factor weights that are applied to one or more parameters of one or more transactions for generating the prediction;”. This is indicative of the machine learning being merely applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)), and further supports the stance that the claims are merely limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The instant claims and specification do not include any specific details necessarily rooted in a computer technology showing as to how the claimed pseudo-networks are generated, of which appear to simply be information associated with routing costs (e.g., “[a] change in regulatory exemption status or a change in preferred status”). Additionally, even assuming it was something necessarily technological in nature (of which the examiner does not agree), there is nothing in the specification that delineates and architectural details from a technological perspective as to what constitutes a “pseudo-network”. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully submits they are not even an additional element, but further notes, arguendo, if they are, they are, at best, merely applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… 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 … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract least-cost transaction routing, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 21, 28, and 35 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B, claims 21, 28, and 35 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 21, 28, and 35, each when viewed as a whole, do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as their additional elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract least-cost transaction routing concept within a particular technological environment – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Hence, independent claims 21, 28, and 35 are not patent eligible.
In order to further support the aforementioned determinations that the aforementioned additional elements drawn to machine learning are merely applied15 and do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field under steps 2A Prong II and 2B, Examiner notes the following evidentiary support16:
the following prior art indicating or otherwise suggesting the claimed “applying a trained machine learning model…wherein the trained machine learning model determines factor weights that are applied to one or more parameters …” as well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the technical field of machine learning (i.e., not an improvement to the technical field of machine learning):
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150170024 A1 (Chatterjee), disclosing, in ¶3: “Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational ... ANNs generally include sets of adaptive weights, i.e., numerical parameters that are tuned by a learning algorithm. The adaptive weights are, conceptually, connection strengths between "neurons," which are activated during training and prediction.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170344910 A1 (Wu), disclosing it is common for certain machine learning implementations (e.g., neural networks and random forest) to use millions of weight parameters (¶8).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170061282 A1 (Ryskamp), disclosing, in ¶2: “Traditional approaches to artificial intelligence and/or machine learning rely on random convergence of a series of weights. Such approaches require large amounts of computational resources (e.g., processing power) and/or time resources, often both.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140180994 A1 (Lobera), suggesting in ¶66, that adjusting parameters and weights of parameters is common to machine learning technology, as it states “it is common to say to `adjust a parameter`, or to `adjust the weights` of a set of parameters within the machine learning … literature.”.
the following prior art indicating or otherwise suggesting the claimed “…translating message formats and transmission parameters …” as well-understood, routine and conventional activity for payment network environments when network entities are managing merchant transactions (i.e., not a technological improvement in payment network environments):
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170308880 A1 (Phillips), disclosing in background section (¶3): “In terms of recording and tracking the transactions, conventional transactions at … [payment] terminals may not be isolated as such, and instead may be identified as attended POS transactions by Issuers, Acquirers and card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Conventionally, merchants set the codes associated with attended POS transactions according to Acquirer instructions, which are based on standards established by card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Merchants send data to Acquirers, who reformat the data into the MasterCard or other card format.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20120221468 A1 (Kumnick), disclosing in in background section (¶3): “There are many acquirers that work with payment processing networks to facilitate transactions. Some of these acquirers have specific guidelines and standards for the format of the authorization logs and captures files that they receive from various entities in the payment networks. For example, if a merchant wants to be able to accept payment from consumers using a multitude of payment methods, each from a different acquirer using a different payment processing network, the merchant must adapt their systems, establish a connection between its own systems and the systems of each acquirer, and format its messages to the specifications of each acquirer.”
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims have been given the full analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 22, 24, 29, 31, 36, 38, and 41 their limitations each fail to provide any further additional elements outside the abstract idea, and only further specify the abstract least-cost transaction routing concept. Furthermore, their limitations do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of their respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claims 22, 24, 29, 31, 36, and 38 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 22, 24, 29, 31, 36, 38, and 41 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 25-27, 32-34, 39, 40, and 43, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claim merely utilizes generic graphical displays and user interfaces at a high degree of generality, in terms of the desired results, and in a manner conventional to the technological environment of computers, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 25-27, 32-34, 39, and 40, are not patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 42, it recites further details of the abstract transaction routing, per reciting limitations “…identifying a lowest opportunity-cost combination of acquirer processor and payment … [provider] or … [data modifying payment routes] based on iterative simulation of routing through the simulation model.”. The additional elements, “…network…” and “pseudo-network” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the transaction routing analysis to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 42 is also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior Art Generally Pertinent to Applicant’s Invention
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130311375 A1 (Priesbastch ‘375).
Priesbastch ‘375 is pertinent for expressly teaching:
receiving transaction-related information from a merchant (Fig. 4, ref 402; ¶6; ¶32),
extracting transaction routing criteria from the transaction-related information; (Fig. 4, refs, 402, 406: “Extract and Save Financial Account Attributes”; ¶¶6, 33)
identifying one or more eligible acquirer processors based on the transaction routing criteria; (Fig. 4, refs 412, 422; ¶8; ¶¶6, 36; ¶38 in further view of ¶¶3,5 providing context of ¶38)
applying … [computer] for … predicting a plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances for a plurality of … the one or more eligible acquirer processors …;(Fig. 4, ref 424; ¶¶9, 31, 38)
determining a least cost … based on the plurality of likelihood of authorization acceptances; (Fig. 4, ref 414, “Select the processor with the lowest fee and submit the transaction for processing”; ¶36: “The identification module 216 then identifies the payment processor with the lowest determined fee for the current transaction and selects this processor to receive the transaction details and move the transaction through credit card network 106 (step 414).”, in further view of aforementioned Fig. 4, ref 424; ¶¶9, 31, 38);
updating a transaction routing table according to the least cost combination (¶22);
and routing a transaction from the merchant according to the updated transaction routing table. (Fig. 4, ref 414; ¶36)
Examiner notes Priesbastch ‘375 also implicitly discloses the following, as examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art understands the interchange costs disclosed in ¶¶2, 22, 34 of Priesbastch ‘375 are set by payment networks used by the issuer banks17:
identifying one … eligible payment network… based on the transaction routing criteria;
See ¶¶22-23 of Priesbastch ‘375, in further view of ¶¶2, 22, 34, noting one of ordinary skill in the art understands interchange costs disclosed in ¶¶2, 22, 34 of Priesbastch ‘375 are set by (and differ among) payment networks used by the issuer banks.
… a plurality of combinations of the one or more eligible acquirer processors and the one … eligible payment network…
See Fig. 4, ref 424, ¶¶9, 31, 38, noting one of ordinary skill in the art understands the interchange costs disclosed in ¶¶2, 22, 34 of Priesbastch ‘375 are set by payment networks used by the issuer banks.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130268431 A1 (Mozendah). Mozendah is relevant for teaching issued cards for banks (e.g., cards from issuers) necessarily include more than one network which a given issued may use, as per the Durbin amendment – see at least ¶¶3-5, 32, and equation after ¶4. Additionally, ¶21 is pertinent, at least for stating: “…transaction information is selected from the group consisting of payment information, …. BIN … [etc.,], … and cards networks of which the card issuer is a member.”. ¶¶32-35 is pertinent as it discloses the BIN of a card can be used to identify a card network associated with the card/issuer. See also table 1 after ¶35, stating: “…Different networks have different fees…”. Lastly, ¶¶36, 38, 41, 57, 58, 69, 74, 76, 88 are relevant, at least in part for disclosing use of a BIN (e.g., piece of transaction data) used to identify two or more eligible payment networks (as is required by U.S. banks acting as card issuers, due to the Durbin amendment (i.e., United States Federal law)).
United States Patent Publication No. US 10997596 B1 (Thomas). Thomas is pertinent for suggesting that different payment networks are generally known to each have their own fraud protection services based on fraud detection models, which uses transaction data as input (Col 1, lines 27-40). Thomas additionally discloses a research engine embodiment which may be implemented across one or more parts of a system (e.g., across different payment networks, acquirers, etc.), and may calculate/identify potentially fraudulent transactions (e.g., declined transactions) based on transaction data corresponding to declined transactions (Column 6, line 13 – Col 7, line 5).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20100223145 A1 (Dragt). At least ¶131 is pertinent for disclosing a transaction processor requesting risk determinations or transaction approval determinations from multiple third parties, of which may include financial institutions and card processors.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130138563 A1 (Gilder). At least ¶47 in further view of ¶36 of Gilder suggests both processors and payment networks using risk analysis: “…traditional monitoring methods may be used by processors or payment networks to monitor merchant activity or transaction patterns on a periodic basis…”.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140344155 A1 (Liu). Liu is pertinent for disclosing risk analyses based on transaction data being implemented by machine learning such as neural networks, genetic algorithms, regression, etc. (¶85).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20120221468 A1 (Kumnick). Kumnick is pertinent for disclosing it is generally known that merchants accepting payment via a multitude of payment methods need to format their messages to acquirer-specific specifications (¶3).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170308880 A1 (Phillips), disclosing in background section (¶3): “In terms of recording and tracking the transactions, conventional transactions at … [payment] terminals may not be isolated as such, and instead may be identified as attended POS transactions by Issuers, Acquirers and card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Conventionally, merchants set the codes associated with attended POS transactions according to Acquirer instructions, which are based on standards established by card associations (e.g., MasterCard). Merchants send data to Acquirers, who reformat the data into the MasterCard or other card format.”
Non-patent literature, “Durbin & Debit – The Devil’s in the Details” (Poutliot). Pouliot is pertinent for disclosing BIN analytics used to determine exemption status for issuers.
Prior Art Pertinent for Applicant’s Dependent Claims
The following prior art is relevant to the following indicated dependent claims:
Dependent Claims 22, 29, 36:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130054465 A1 (Sakata), disclosing a “Least Cost Routing and Matching” algorithm (title). At least ¶¶28, 66-69 are relevant, as they disclose a motivation for transaction brokers18, to determine / track information pertaining to a payment processing network associated (e.g., owned and/or operated by the same business entity as the transaction brokers - ¶28 of Sakata), so as to match competitor prices (Fig. 3 in further view of ¶¶66-69, especially ¶69). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Sakata’s above disclosure determines determination of a breakeven amount, so as to maintain competitive pricing for the affiliated payment processing network, which was originally higher than the competing least cost route. However, Sakata fails to expressly disclose combinations of multiple acquirers and multiple payment networks, and seemingly only focuses on multiple payment networks and a single acquirer, despite arguably suggesting networks comprising acquirers too, in ¶27: “A "payment processing network" can include a network that processes payments. Payment processing network may include a system that receives accumulated transaction information from merchants, acquirers, and/or a transaction broker”. See ¶¶28 and 66-69:
¶28: An "affiliated payment processing network" may be a payment processing network that is associated with a transaction broker. For example, a transaction broker and an affiliated payment processing network may be owned and/or operated by the same business entity.
¶66: FIG. 3 is a flow diagram showing operations involved in least cost routing and matching, according to an embodiment. At operation 302, transaction broker server 112 receives an authorization request message for a transaction. For example, the authorization request message may be received from access device 104 (e.g., via one or more of merchant server 106 and acquirer server 108). At operation 304, cost adjustment module 114 determines a cost A associated with processing a transaction via an affiliated payment processing network A. At operation 306, cost adjustment module 114 determines a cost B associated with processing a transaction via a non-affiliated payment processing network B. At decision diamond 308, cost adjustment module 114 determines whether cost A is less than or equal to cost B. If cost A is less than or equal to cost B, cost adjustment module 114 determines that payment processing network A is the least cost payment processing network. Because payment processing network A is the least cost payment processing network, the authorization request message is routed to payment processing network A, as indicated at operation 310.
[0067] If cost A is not less than or equal to cost B, cost adjustment module 114 determines that non-affiliated payment processing network B is the least cost payment processing network. Because non-affiliated payment processing network B is the least cost payment processing network, cost adjustment module 114 determines whether to adjust the transaction cost associated with affiliated payment processing network A.
¶68: In some embodiments, the authorization request message is for a transaction that is eligible for processing by multiple non-affiliated networks (e.g., non-affiliated payment processing networks B, C, D, etc.) Costs B, C, and D associated with non-affiliated payment processing networks B, C, and D, respectively, can be determined. Cost adjustment module 114 determines which of networks A-D is the least cost network. If affiliated payment processing network A is the least cost payment processing network, the authorization request message is routed to affiliated payment processing network A. If payment processing network A is not the least cost network, cost adjustment module 114 determines whether to adjust the transaction cost associated with affiliated payment processing network A.
¶69: At decision diamond 312, cost adjustment module 114 determines whether one or more price adjusting criteria ("rules") are satisfied. In one example, a rule indicates that if excess network capacity on the affiliated payment processing network exceeds 20%, the transaction cost associated with the affiliated payment processing network will be reduced (e.g., to match the transaction cost associated with the least cost payment processing network).
Dependent Claims 24, 31, 38
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20120271765 A1 (Cervenka), disclosing a method of “Routing Optimization” (title). Cervenka discloses sorting a routing priority list (e.g., Analogous to Applicant’s Figs. 5A / 5B) based on considerations such as conditioned incentives and prioritizing (e.g. sorting) based on costs that account for said conditioned incentives (¶44). ¶6 discloses the cost determination for this list of payment processing networks is determined by gateway service based on analyzing transaction volume, and resultantly orders (i.e., sorts) the list of payment processing networks according to processing cost, by which authorization request messages are routed according to said sorted list. ¶37 discloses prioritization of the payment processing networks may be modified by merchants based on factors such as cost, availability, reliability, and lower rates of charge backs (i.e., authorization acceptance). Generally, ¶¶6, 23, 37, and 44 are pertinent to sorting based on costs, and ¶¶41, 42, 84 are pertinent to sorting based on preferred rates19. However, Cervenka fails to disclose combinations of multiple Acquirers and multiple payment networks, and only focuses on multiple payment networks.
Dependent Claims 25-27, 32-34, 39, and 40
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140040114 A1 (Baumgart), disclosing “Systems and Methods for Optimizing the Routing of Debit Transactions” (title).
With respect to dependent claims 23, 30, and 37, Baumgart discloses, in ¶¶41, 45, 49, and 50, that parameters corresponding to historical transaction information being evaluated for transaction networks (¶41), of which may include special arrangements / discounts from transaction network, understood in context to be synonymous with preferred rates for the merchant. Furthermore, again with respect to dependent claims 23, 30, and 37 of Applicant claims, ¶¶13, 26, 41 and 54-56 in further view of at least Figs. 4-8 of Baumgart discloses dashboard presentations for analyzing the aforementioned transaction history information, where they may be sorted to sort the historical transaction information based on transaction network and regulated / unregulated classifications (¶13). i.e., Baumgart discloses at the very least: generating … user elements enabling a user to reveal a group of transaction routing decisions according to issuer, regulatory exemption status, and preference or preferred rate status.
With respect to dependent claims 25, 32, and 39, Baumgart discloses or at least otherwise heavily suggests, at least in ¶56 in further view of Fig. 6, and ¶58 in further view of at least ¶50, a user configurable display of regulated vs. exempt issuers. At least ¶¶13, 26, 41, 45, 49, 50, 54-56 of Baumgart are also relevant.
With respect to dependent claims 26, 33, and 40, Baumgart discloses generating a display of a first grouping […] to which a set of transactions were routed relative to a second grouping of the plurality of combinations to which [a] set of transactions were routed relative to a second grouping of the plurality of combinations to which the set of transactions could have been routed, for an overall cost savings to the merchant. (¶¶58, 59 of Baumgart, in further view of Figs. 7 and 8)
With respect to dependent claims 27 and 3420, Baumgart, under broadest reasonable interpretation, discloses or otherwise reasonably suggests generating [interface] to reveal a group of transaction routing decisions according to issuer, regulatory exemption status, and preference or preferred rate status – ¶¶26, 41-42, Figs. 4-8, of Baumgart:
[0026] The dashboard modules 156 may evaluate the historical transaction information and sort or organize transactions in accordance with any number of parameters, including but not limited to, transaction networks (e.g., a debit network or PIN network, etc.) utilized to route the transactions, […] transaction types (e.g., regulated or unregulated transaction, etc.), … In this regard, a wide variety of statistical information and/or representative information associated with transaction distribution may be included presented via one or more dashboard presentation generated by the dashboard modules 156 for communication to a merchant device 110.
[0041] At block 210, at least a portion of the identified historical transaction information may be evaluated and/or processed. […] In certain embodiments, special arrangements and/or discounts associated with transaction networks may also be identified. For example, special arrangement and/or discount information may be received from a merchant or other data source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, 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 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/John H. Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Examiner notes the “…exempt vs. regulated status and standard vs. preferred rates…” are distinctions that impact routing costs.
2 See pages 12-18 of Applicant Remarks received 06/17/2026.
3 See pages 12-14 of Applicant Remarks received 06/17/2026.
4 Pages 14-16 of Remarks.
5 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
6 c. Arguendo, even if the pseudo-networks are determined to necessarily correspond to an additional element, they are only used as a mere stand-in for a hypothetical transaction route to be analyzed within the context of least-cost routing based on cost related attributes at a high degree of generality (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
7 See MPEP §2106.05(f), emphasis added: “For example, because this [Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception] consideration often overlaps with the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), and the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is more than mere instructions to apply an exception”.
8 MPEP §2106.07, underline emphasis added: “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter.”
9 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
10 I.e., “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
11 See MPEP § 2106 I.
12 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
13 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
14 See ¶¶45-46 of Applicant specification characterizing acquirer processors as business entities.
15 See MPEP §2106.05(f), emphasis added: “For example, because this [Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception] consideration often overlaps with the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), and the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is more than mere instructions to apply an exception”.
16 MPEP §2106.07, underline emphasis added: “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter.”
17 Examiner notes Mozendah (further below) more explicitly teaches that this is a generally known feature for payment networks / routing costs.
18 E.g., analogous to Direct Processors, of which Examiner understands Applicant, “WorldPay” to be
19 Even though the “preferred rates” are not verbatim stated in Cervenka, the aforementioned disclosure of Cervenka is descriptive of such, at least to one of ordinary skill in the art.
20 Examiner interprets the claim limitations of claims 27 and 34 as generally corresponding to at least Applicant’s Fig. 9.
Prosecution Insights