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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 10/9/2025.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6, and 8-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “training, by the payment processing server,” which should be “training, by a payment processing server.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 10 and 19 recite the limitation "the exchange rate scoring mode” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, 10 and 19 recite the limitation “calculating, by the payment processing server, a rate matching score for the first transaction according to an exchange rate scoring model,” in line 10. The claim limitation fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim if this “exchange rate scoring model” is already trained, or a new “exchange rate scoring model.”
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 1-6, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 10 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 1 and 19 recite a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1 and 10 are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 and 10 recite a method comprising: training, by the payment processing server, the exchange rate scoring model based on transaction data stored in a rate matching database, wherein the trained exchange rate scoring model comprises a threshold score; receiving, by a payment processing server, a transaction request to authorize a first transaction, wherein the transaction request comprises a transaction amount in a first currency and transaction information; determining, by the payment processing server, a first exchange rate between the first currency and a second currency based on a rate matching database, wherein the first exchange rate is determined at an authorization time; calculating, by the payment processing server, a rate matching score for the first transaction according to an exchange rate scoring model, wherein the rate matching score indicates a suitability to calculate a clearing transaction amount with the first exchange rate at a clearing time for eligible transactions; determining, by the payment processing server, the first transaction is one of the eligible transactions based on the rate matching score meeting the threshold score, wherein the threshold score indicates that the first exchange rate can be used for calculating the clearing transaction amount with the first exchange rate at the clearing time; storing, by the payment processing server, the transaction information and the first exchange rate to the rate matching database, at the authorization time; transmitting, by the payment processing server, a notification to an issuer system, wherein the notification comprises an authorization transaction amount in the second currency, and wherein the authorization transaction amount is based on the first exchange rate, and wherein the notification is transmitted before the clearing time; generating, by the payment processing server, the clearing transaction amount based on the first exchange rate; determining, by the payment processing server, a difference between the transaction amount and the clearing amount; and retraining, by the payment processing server, the exchange rate scoring model based on the difference between the transaction amount and the clearing amount, and the transaction information, wherein the retrained exchange rate scoring model comprises an updated threshold score. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interaction (business relations) and managing interactions between people (following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a payment processing server, rate matching database, an issuer system, one of or more processor, and memory comprising instructions. The additional elements of a payment processing server, rate matching database, an issuer system, one of or more processor, and memory comprising instructions, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (payment processing server, rate matching database, an issuer system, one of or more processor, and memory comprising instructions) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein generating the clearing transaction amount based on the first exchange rate comprising receiving, by the payment processing server, an electronic draft capture associated with the transaction request; evaluating, by the payment processing server, a cross-currency transaction policy during the clearing time; determining, by the payment processing server, the first transaction is eligible to use the first exchange rate to calculate the transaction amount in the second currency at the clearing time, based on the cross-currency transaction policy; transmitting, by the payment processing server, a rate matching request to the rate matching database, wherein the rate matching request comprises the transaction information necessary to determine the first exchange rate; generating, by the payment processing server, the clearing transaction amount based on the first exchange rate; and transmitting, by the payment processing server, the clearing transaction amount and the electronic draft capture to the issuer system. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of payment processing server, rate matching database and the issuer system are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the rate matching score is determined based on the transaction information of the transaction request, historical information for a merchant, and the exchange rate scoring model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the transaction information comprises a merchant identifier, a foreign transaction amount, a purchase category of the first transaction, and a merchant category.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the first currency is a foreign currency relative to a customer and wherein the second currency is a domestic currency relative to the customer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the rate matching score is based on a foreign transaction amount, the first currency, and the second currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the cross-currency transaction policy is based on historical information for a merchant, a foreign transaction amount, a purchase category of the first transaction, and a merchant category. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the cross-currency transaction policy is based on historical information for a merchant. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites to generate by the payment processing server, the clearing transaction amount based on the first exchange rate cause the payment processing server to: receive an electronic draft capture associated with the transaction request; evaluate a cross-currency transaction policy during the clearing time; determine the first transaction is eligible to use the first exchange rate to calculate the transaction amount in the second currency at the clearing time, based on the cross-currency transaction policy; transmit a rate matching request to the rate matching database, wherein the rate matching request comprises the transaction information necessary to determine the first exchange rate; generate the clearing transaction amount based on the first exchange rate; and transmit the clearing transaction amount and the electronic draft capture to the issuer system. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of cloud payment processing server, rate matching database and the issuer system, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the rate matching score is determined based on the transaction information of the transaction request, historical information for a merchant, and the exchange rate scoring model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the transaction information comprises a merchant identifier, a foreign transaction amount, a purchase category of the first transaction, and a merchant category.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the first currency is a foreign currency relative to a customer and wherein the second currency is a domestic currency relative to the customer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein the rate matching score is based on a foreign transaction amount, the first currency, and the second currency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the exchange rate scoring model comprises a supervised deep learning model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein the cross-currency transaction policy is based on historical information for a merchant, a foreign transaction amount, a purchase category of the first transaction, and a merchant category. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the cross-currency transaction policy is based on historical information for a merchant. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 19 is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
Claim 19 recites a method comprising: training, by the payment processing server, the exchange rate scoring model based on transaction data stored in a rate matching database, wherein the trained exchange rate scoring model comprises a threshold score; receiving, by a payment processing server, a transaction request to authorize a first transaction, wherein the transaction request comprises a transaction amount in a first currency and transaction information; determining, by the payment processing server, a first exchange rate between the first currency and a second currency based on a rate matching database, wherein the first exchange rate is determined at an authorization time; calculating, by the payment processing server, a rate matching score for the first transaction according to an exchange rate scoring model, wherein the rate matching score indicates a suitability to calculate a clearing transaction amount with the first exchange rate at a clearing time for eligible transactions; determining, by the payment processing server, the first transaction is one of the eligible transactions based on the rate matching score meets a threshold score, wherein the threshold score indicates that the first exchange rate can be used for calculating the clearing transaction amount with the first exchange rate at the clearing time; storing, by the payment processing server, the transaction information and the first exchange rate to the rate matching database, at the authorization time, wherein the exchange rate scoring model is a supervised machine learning model, and wherein the supervised machine learning model is trained based on the eligible transactions stored in the rate matching database; evaluating, by the payment processing server, a cross-currency transaction policy during the clearing time; determining, by the payment processing server, the first transaction is eligible to use the first exchange rate to calculate the transaction amount in the second currency at the clearing time, based on the cross-currency transaction policy; generating, by the payment processing server, the clearing transaction amount based on the first exchange rate; transmitting, by the payment processing server, the clearing transaction amount and an electronic draft capture associated with the transaction request to an issuer system; determining, by the, a payment processing server difference between the transaction amount and the clearing amount; and retraining, by the payment processing server, the exchange rate scoring model based on the difference between the transaction amount and the clearing amount, the authorization time, the clearing time, and the transaction information, wherein the retrained exchange rate scoring model comprises an updated threshold score. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interaction (business relations) and managing interactions between people (following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a payment processing server, rate matching database, an issuer system, one of or more processor, and memory comprising instructions. The additional elements of a payment processing server, rate matching database, an issuer system, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
Claim 19 is next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (payment processing server, rate matching database, an issuer system, one of or more processor, and memory comprising instructions) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claim limitations are not an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interaction (business relations) and managing interactions between people (following rules or instructions).
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.
An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.
An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
The currently recited claims recite how a typical machine learning model works, using specific attributes and parameters. However, the claims do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions. Although a machine learning model is used for the purposes of determining cross-currency transaction, such uses is both generic and conventional. The object of the claims is to determine cross currency transactions, not to produce technology enabling a machine learning model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a machine learning model in the manner such models conventionally operate. Simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility. The MPEP notes this distinction.
The MPEP notes this distinction (For example, in MPEP 2106.05(f)(I), it states: Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743). In the instant application, the currently recited claims use machine learning as generic data processing.
The currently recited claims, including the machine learning model, are recited at a high level, and are still at an “apply it” as results based. Additionally, the “training” of the machine learning model is used to provide the abstract idea. In other words, the “training” is done at such a high level that it amounts to apply it (results based) and also uses generic training in its ordinary capacity, with the only difference being the data.
Lastly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve cross-currency transactions, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693