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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20-22 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 03-July-2023. No priority has been claimed in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of effective filing date as the priority date.
No additional information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
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 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20-22 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 are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. 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 conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites “a method for settling a central ledger in a central payment [organization], the method comprising:
generating, on a merchant [store], a [paper] associated with an acquirer application;
displaying, at the [paper] on a merchant [store], a plurality of transactions and associated transaction period and pre-authorized settlement dates, wherein the plurality of transactions and associated transaction period and pre-authorized settlement dates are stored on the central payment [organization] in the central ledger, wherein the central payment [organization] is remote from the merchant [store];
receiving a selection, at the [paper] on the merchant [store], of a settlement type associated with a set of transactions of the plurality of transactions;
sending, by the merchant [store], the settlement type to the central payment [organization];
determining, by the central payment [organization], the settlement type associated with the merchant [store];
determining, by the central payment [organization], a settlement date associated with the settlement type, wherein the settlement date is within a settlement window associated with a transaction period for the merchant [store], wherein the settlement window comprises a range of permissible dates for initiation of a settlement request, and wherein the settlement window and the transaction period are non-concurrent periods;
retrieving, by the central payment [organization], the set of transactions associated with the selected settlement type and stored on the central ledger, wherein the set of transactions are pre-authorized by an issuer [entity] and stored on the central ledger, wherein the issuer [entity] is remote from the central payment [organization];
transmitting, by the central payment [organization], the settlement request to the issuer [entity], wherein the settlement request prompts the issuer [entity] to push funds to an acquirer [entity] associated with the merchant [store], and wherein the settlement request prompts the issuer [entity] to cover a settlement balance of the set of transactions;
receiving, by the central payment [organization], a confirmation message from the acquirer [entity], the confirmation message indicative of receipt of funds associated with the set of transactions associated with the issuer [entity];
updating, by the central payment [organization], a transaction status for the set of transactions in the central ledger, wherein the transaction status is updated based on the confirmation message received by the acquirer [entity]; and
notifying, by the central payment [organization], the merchant [store] that funds were received by the acquirer [entity] associated with the set of transactions.”
As per Claim 12, the claim recites “a method for settling a central ledger in a central payment [organization], the method comprising:
generating, on a merchant [store], a [paper] associated with an acquirer application;
displaying, at the [paper] on a merchant [store], a plurality of transactions and associated transaction period and pre-authorized settlement dates, wherein the plurality of transaction and associated transaction period and pre-authorized settlement dates are stored on the central payment [organization] in the central ledger, wherein the central payment [organization] is remote from the merchant [store];
receiving a selection, at the [paper] on the merchant [store], of a settlement date;
sending, by the merchant [store], the settlement date to the central payment [organization];
receiving, by the central payment [organization], the settlement date from the merchant [store] wherein the settlement date is within a settlement window associated with a transaction period for the merchant [store] wherein the settlement window comprises a range of permissible dates for initiation of a settlement request, and wherein the settlement window and the transaction period are non-concurrent;
determining, by the central payment [organization], a set of transactions made in the transaction period, wherein the set of transactions are pre-authorized by an issuer [entity] and stored on the central ledger, wherein the issuer [entity] is remote from the central payment [organization];
transmitting, by the central payment [organization], a settlement request to the issuer [entity], wherein the settlement request prompts the issuer [entity] to push funds to an acquirer [entity] associated with the merchant [store], wherein the settlement request prompts the issuer [entity] to cover a settlement balance of the set of transactions;
receiving, by the central payment [organization], a confirmation message from the acquirer [entity] indicating receipt of funds associated with the set of transactions associated with the issuer [entity];
updating, by the central payment [organization], a transaction status for the set of transactions in the central ledger, wherein the transaction status is updated in response to the confirmation message received from the acquirer [entity]; and
notifying, by the central payment [organization], the merchant [store] that funds were received by the acquirer [entity] associated with the set of transactions.”
As per Claim 18, the claim recites “a method for settling a central ledger in a central payment [organization], the method comprising:
generating, on a customer …, a [paper] associated with an issuer application;
capturing, by the customer … via the issuer application, a merchant [information code];
receiving, at the issuer application on the customer …, a transaction request;
authorizing, by the issuer application, a transaction;
sending, by the issuer application on the customer …, a transaction record to the central payment [organization], wherein the customer … is remote from the central payment [organization];
receiving, by the central payment [organization], transaction records associated with transaction requests made by a plurality of customer …;
recording, by the central payment [organization], the transaction records in the central ledger;
performing, by the central payment [organization], a periodic settlement query on the central ledger based on a predetermined transaction period associated with a merchant identifier of a merchant [store], wherein the merchant [store] is remote from the central payment [organization];
transmitting, by the central payment [organization], a settlement request to a plurality of issuer [entity] corresponding to the plurality of customer …, wherein the settlement request is based on the periodic settlement query, wherein the periodic settlement query is associated with a settlement window comprising a range of permissible dates for initiation of the settlement request, and wherein the settlement window and the predetermined transaction period are non-concurrent periods, and wherein the settlement request prompts an issuer [entity] of the plurality of issuer [entities] to cover a settlement balance of a set of transactions;
receiving, by the central payment [organization], a settlement confirmation from an acquirer [entity] corresponding to the merchant [store], wherein the settlement confirmation indicated that settlement funds were deposited in an account associated with the merchant [store]; and
updating, by the central payment [organization], the central ledger associated with the plurality of customer … based on the settlement confirmation.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. system, device, etc.), recites certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. The method recited above is a process of performing a settlement for a transaction associated with the received transaction information, displaying transaction and settlement information, updating the transaction status information on a ledger, and notifying the party regarding the transaction. The steps of performing settlement for the transaction is fundamental economic principles or practices, and the various steps involving interactions between parties (e.g. merchant, acquirer, issuer, etc.) to communicate information regarding the transaction to perform settlement is commercial or legal interactions, wherein both are under certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “server”, “device”, and “graphical user interface” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, but merely performs its basic functionalities, such as: determine data, display data, transmit data, receive data, update data, and notify data, as disclosed by Figure 25 and Specification [0073-0077]. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, determine, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “further comprising: notifying, by the computer server, a user device associated with the transaction status for the set of transactions in the central ledger, that the transaction status is updated.” The claims provide further steps of notifying information to a user device. As similarly discussed above with their parent claims, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites “further comprising: determining, by the computer server, the settlement type is an automatic settlement, wherein the merchant device sets an auto-settlement date within the settlement window as the settlement date.” The claim provides further steps of determining data (e.g. determine the type of information). As similarly discussed above with its parent claim, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the auto-settlement date is a predetermined number of days after the transaction period is closed that falls within the settlement window.” The claim provides further details regarding the information (e.g. settlement date), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application, as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 6 recites “further comprising: determining, by the computer server, the settlement type is an automatic settlement; determining, by the computer server, the merchant device does not set an auto-settlement date for the settlement date; and selecting, by the computer server, the settlement date within the settlement window associated with the transaction period for the merchant device.” The claim provides further steps of determining data (e.g. determine the type of information) and selecting data. As similarly discussed above with its parent claim, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites “further comprising: determining, by the computer server, the settlement type is a manual settlement; and determining, by the computer server, the settlement date for a manual settlement based on a merchant device request to perform the manual settlement, wherein a timestamp of the merchant device request to perform the manual settlement is assigned as the settlement date.” The claim provides further steps of determining data (e.g. determine the type of information) and requesting data. As similarly discussed above with its parent claim, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites “further comprising: determining, by the computer server, the settlement type is a manual settlement; determining, by the computer server, that a present date is a last day in the settlement window and the merchant device has not provided a settlement date for the manual settlement; and assigning, by the computer server, the present date as the settlement date, based on determining that the settlement date was not provided by the merchant device for the manual settlement.” The claim provides further steps of determining data (e.g. determine the type of information) and assigning data. As similarly discussed above with its parent claim, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 recite “wherein the settlement request prompts the issuer system to cover a settlement balance of a first transaction in the set of transactions, wherein the first transaction is associated with a first customer account at the issuer system, and wherein an account balance of the first customer account is insufficient to settle the settlement balance associated with the first transaction.” The claims provide further steps of prompting data (e.g. provide information). As similarly discussed above with their parent claims, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “further comprising: transmitting, by the computer server, a notification to a user device associated with the first customer account at the issuer system, wherein the notification indicates that the first customer account is insufficient to settle the settlement balance associated with the first transaction and the settlement balance of the first transaction was covered by the issuer system.” The claims provide further steps of transmitting data. As similarly discussed above with their parent claims, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 11 and 17 recite “wherein the settlement request prompts the issuer system to pull a settlement balance directly from a first customer account, wherein the settlement balance is associated with a first transaction in the set of transactions, wherein the first transaction is associated with the first customer account at the issuer system, and wherein an account balance of the first customer account is sufficient to settle the settlement balance associated with the first transaction.” The claims provide further steps of prompting data (e.g. provide information). As similarly discussed above with their parent claims, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the QR code is associated with the merchant identifier.” The claim provides further details regarding the data. As similarly discussed above with its parent claim, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the transaction request comprises a preauthorization, by the customer, of a transaction amount.” The claim provides further details regarding the transaction, which is still part of the abstract idea. As similarly discussed above with its parent claim, merely applying the generic computer system to implement the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2, 4-11, 13, 15-17, and 20-22, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claims, each claim recites using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not significantly more. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20-22 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9 to 12, filed 13-August-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, see pages 9 to 10, that the claims improve “any other technology or technical field”, specifically the settlement payment technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The solution to “prevent premature settlement requests and enforce a structured temporal relationship between the transaction accumulation phase and the settlement phase” is still part of the abstract idea, and “across a geographically distributed system of remote merchant devices, a central payment server, remote issuer systems, and remote acquirer systems” is merely applying the additional elements (e.g. generic computer system) to implement the abstract idea (e.g. apply a computer system to send, receive, analyze, and display information associated with transactions). As disclosed in the previous office action, the steps associated with requiring settlement-window constraints and non-concurrent periods, and periodic settlement queries over a central ledger keyed to merchant identifiers and transaction periods are still part of the abstract idea. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Applicant contends, see pages 10 to 11, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims may recite additional elements, such as a central payment server, merchant device, issuer system, acquirer system, central ledger, graphical user interface, etc., considering the claims without these additional elements, the claims recite a process of performing a settlement for a transaction associated with the received transaction information, displaying transaction and settlement information, updating the transaction status information on a ledger, and notifying the party regarding the transaction. The steps of performing settlement for the transaction is fundamental economic principles or practices, and the various steps involving interactions between parties (e.g. merchant, acquirer, issuer, etc.) to communicate information regarding the transaction to perform settlement is commercial or legal interactions, wherein both are under certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, and as discussed above, mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application, and not “significantly more”.
Claims 4-5 specifying to “set auto-settlement date” at “a predetermined number of days after the transaction period is closed” is providing further details regarding the data or information to set a settlement rule, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are a mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 6 specifying to “select the settlement date within the settlement window” based on the set rule is merely selecting data, which is still part of the abstract idea and the additional elements are a mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 specifying the “timestamp of the merchant device’s request to perform the manual settlement is assigned as the settlement date” is merely performing data analysis to determine data regarding the settlement of the transaction, which still part of the abstract idea and the additional elements are a mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 specifying that “the present date is the last day in the settlement window and the merchant device has not provided a settlement date, the computer server assigns the present date as the settlement date” is merely comparing data to assign data based on data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea and the additional elements are a mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 specifying to determine “an insufficient account balance to settle the settlement balance associated with the first transaction” is merely performing data analysis associated with the transaction account, which is still part of the abstract idea and the additional elements are a mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights