DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
In the office action dated 1/26/26, the examiner rejected claims 1-20 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomich (20220180429) in view of Abreu (20220327542). In response, the applicant substantially narrowed down the claim scope in the amendments dated 5/12/26. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 9 and 15 now recite the limitations of “wherein the first business entity is selected by the new merchant from a list of similar business entities corresponding to the new merchant based on identifiers associated with the new merchant; normalizing, by the integration server, heterogeneous data associated with received from a plurality of external sources, into a standardized data structure stored in a centralized integration data store accessible by a decision server, wherein the standardized data structure is used as input to a decision logic model”. This is in addition to the other disclosed elements for approving merchant’s credit request by checking merchant’s name and credit score previously disclosed and currently existing in the claim language. The newly added elements – in combination with the other claim elements – overcome the prior art previously found and currently searched. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The examiner is objecting to claims 1, 9, and 15 for lacking clarity. The examiner notes that both “a decision server” and “a decision logic model” are mentioned twice in claims 1, 9, and 15. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is assuming that they are referring to the same “decision server” and the same “decision logic model”. This interpretation makes sense because they both are used as part of the same process.
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 9-14 continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although the specification specifically excludes signal per se from computer storage media (paragraph 49), it also states that the memory can include “computer storage media in the form of volatile” memory (paragraph 51). Volatile memory is a type of computer memory that needs a continuous power supply to maintain its stored data. This would involve electric signals to power the memory. The applicant may wish to clarify or limit the scope of the claim.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES”).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of approving merchant’s credit request by checking merchant’s name and credit score.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving user’s (i.e., merchant’s) request for authorization merchant’s credit application; querying external database through an API to receiving list of entities; receiving a selection of business from merchant; first business entity is selected by the new merchant from a list of similar business entities based on identifiers associated with the new merchant; normalizing data format received from a plurality of external sources; standardized data structure is used as input to a decision logic model; retrieving user’s credit score from external database; executing a decision logic model; decision logic model trained using prior application based on credit score and the “standardized data structure”; generating decision for authorization; transmitting the decision to the new merchant, – specifically, the claim recites
“Receiving… a request from a new merchant to authorize the new merchant for merchant credit application; querying… an external database… to retrieve a list of similar business entities corresponding to the new merchant based on identifiers associated with the new merchant; receiving, from the new merchant, a selection of a first business entity from the list of similar business entities, wherein the first business entity is selected by the new merchant from a list of similar business entities corresponding to the new merchant based on identifiers associated with the new merchant; normalizing… heterogeneous data associated with the first business entity received from a plurality of external sources, into a standardized data structure stored… wherein the standardized data structure is used as input to a decision logic model; retrieving… a commercial credit score associated with the first business entity; executing… a decision logic model trained using prior credit application outcomes to determine, based on the commercial credit score and the standardized data structure, an authorization decision for the new merchant; generating… a decision message including the authorization decision; and transmitting the decision message to the new merchant”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “at least one processor”, “one or more computer storage media”, “a user interface”, “an integration server”, “an external database”, “an application interface (API)”, “a decision server”, “a decision logic model”, and “a message server”, in claim 1; and the additional technical element of “memory” in claim 9, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as at least one processor, an integration server, a decision server, and a message server; a communication device such as a user interface, an application interface (API); a storage unit such as one or more computer storage media and an external database; and software module and algorithm such as a decision logic model. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of retrieving, from a second external source, a personal credit score for each of a set owner associated with the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a second external source” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of identifying a set of owners associated with the new merchant; and determining, based on the set of owners, that the request includes information for each owner of the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of the operations further comprising normalizing personal credit score data with commercial credit score data into the standardized data structure stored in the centralized integration data store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the centralized integration data store” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of the operations further comprising executing a trained decision-logic model that determines, based at least in part on both the commercial credit score and a normalized personal credit score data, the decision message for the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a trained decision-logic model” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of the operations further comprising assigning a confidence level to each similar entity in the list of similar business entities, the confidence level representing a degree of similarity based on the identifiers associated with the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of the operations further comprising filtering out a business entity from the list of similar business entities having a confidence level below a predetermined threshold, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of generating and transmitting, to cause display via the user interface, a message including the authorization decision and one or more status indicators of the merchant credit application, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the user interface” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of retrieving, from a second external source, a personal credit score for each of a set owner associated with the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a second external source” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of identifying a set of owners associated with the new merchant; and determining, based on the set of owners, that the request includes information for each owner of the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of normalizing personal credit score data with commercial credit score data into the standardized data structure stored in the centralized integration data store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the centralized integration data store” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of executing a trained decision-logic model that determines, based at least in part on both the commercial credit score and a normalized personal credit score data, the decision message for the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a trained decision-logic model” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of assigning a confidence level to each similar entity in the list of similar business entities, the confidence level representing a degree of similarity based on the identifiers associated with the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of retrieving, from a second external source, a personal credit score for each of a set owner associated with the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a second external source” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of identifying a set of owners associated with the new merchant; and determining, based on the set of owners, that the request includes information for each owner of the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of normalizing personal credit score data with commercial credit score data into the standardized data structure stored in the centralized integration data store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the centralized integration data store” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of, executing a trained decision-logic model that determines, based at least in part on both the commercial credit score and a normalized personal credit score data, the decision message for the new merchant which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a trained decision-logic model” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of assigning a confidence level to each similar entity in the list of similar business entities, the confidence level representing a degree of similarity based on the identifiers associated with the new merchant, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s 35 USC 103 arguments are moot because the prior art rejections are withdrawn. The examiner is withdrawing the prior art rejections because the amended claims contain new scope narrowing elements which, in combination with the existing elements, sufficiently narrow the claimed scope to overcome the existing prior art and additional art searched. See Examiner Comment Relating to Prior Art above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. 101… Claim 1 is not abstract. Rather, it is directed to a specific, technological improvement in computer functionality-namely, the normalization and orchestration of heterogeneous merchant data across distributed servers to enable interoperable, real-time authorization processing,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Data normalization to enable data usability (e.g., making sure that the data is of the same type or in the same format) is a normal procedure of “generic computer”. Note that the claimed invention is not improving the data normalization technology. It only uses data normalization in carrying out its business process.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Claim 1 recites a non-generic, multi-server architecture comprising an integration server, decision server, and message server, each performing distinct data-processing operations,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the disclosed computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The integration server… normalizes heterogeneous data formats into a standardized schema stored in a centralized integration data Store… This concrete, computer-implemented transformation of data-converting dissimilar external formats (e.g., JSON, XML, CSV) into an internally consistent structure-is not a financial abstraction but a technical solution to a technical problem: inconsistent data representation and latency across distributed systems,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, data normalization to enable data usability (e.g., making sure that the data is of the same type or in the same format) is a normal procedure of “generic computer”. Note that the claimed invention is not improving the data normalization technology. It only uses data normalization in carrying out its business process.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Claim 1 further enables… ingestion and retrieval… via application programming interfaces (APIs),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that the technical element “API” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also note that the claimed invention is not improving the API technology. It only uses API in carrying out its business process.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Schema normalization and conversion of heterogeneous data formats into a standardized structure,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, data normalization to enable data usability (e.g., making sure that the data is of the same type or in the same format) is a normal procedure of “generic computer”. Note that the claimed invention is not improving the data normalization technology. It only uses data normalization in carrying out its business process.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Automated selection of entity records by the merchant,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a business procedure carried out by “generic computer”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Execution, by the decision server, of a trained decision-logic model using the standardized data to generate an authorization decision,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that the technical element “decision server” and “a trained decision-logic model” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also note that the claimed invention is not improving the logic model technology. It only uses logic model in carrying out its business process.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Generation, by the message server, of structured decision messages and application status updates transmitted through the user interface,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. These are business procedures carried out by “generic computer”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“when properly considered in light of the amended language of independent Claim 1 and the corresponding disclosure in the Specification, the claims are not abstract,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison to the prior version, the added elements (see underlined) and deleted elements (if any, struck out with a line) are essentially:
(1) “receiving, from the new merchant, a selection of a first business entity from the list of similar business entities, wherein the first business entity is selected by the new merchant from a list of similar business entities corresponding to the new merchant based on identifiers associated with the new merchant”;
(2) “normalizing, by the integration server, heterogeneous data associated with received from a plurality of external sources, into a standardized data structure stored in a centralized integration data store accessible by a decision server”; and
(3) “wherein the standardized data structure is used as input to a decision logic model”.
These changes are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections because: for 101 analysis purpose, this is just stating (corresponding to the numberings above):
the selection criteria is based on a list of similar business entities based on identifiers associated with the new merchant;
the first business entity data is received from a plurality of external sources; and
data input includes the standardized data structure;
These are abstract ideas. There is nothing technical about it.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process, fundamental economic practice, or method of organizing human activity. Rather, it recites specific computing operations performed by distinct technical components: an integration server that queries external databases via APIs, normalizes heterogeneous data formats into a standardized data structure stored in a centralized integration data store,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the limitations of approving merchant’s credit request by checking merchant’s name and credit score. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“it is fully integrated into a practical computer-implemented application ,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosed computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“it recites an inventive concept that transforms it into patent-eligible subject matter… The integration server's normalization engine structurally transforms heterogeneous external data into a standardized schema, enabling multi-source processing without manual reconciliation… The decision server's machine-learning logic uses normalized data and prior authorization outcomes to generate adaptive decisions in real time… The message server's communication workflow automatically delivers structured authorization results to merchants via the user interface (emphasis original’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. For the purpose of being responsive, the examiner will repeat – at the risk of being unnecessarily repetitive – data normalization to enable data usability (e.g., making sure that the data is of the same type or in the same format) is a normal procedure of “generic computer”. The claimed invention is not improving the data normalization technology. It only uses data normalization in carrying out its business process. Processing data and delivering the results to users are a business procedure (here, carried out by “generic computer”).
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the latest amendments strengthen the eligibility position by clarifying that Claim 1 is not merely directed to approving a merchant credit application, but to a specific entity-resolved data integration pipeline implemented across coordinated system components… These amendments further integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner directs the applicant’s attention to the analysis provided specifically to the newly amended language above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights