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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 4/7/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 15 and 19. Non-elected claims 15-18 are withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 19-20 are pending for examination.
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 1-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “processing request to perform transaction to transfer funds from a payor account and comparing processing cost”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (mitigating risk; managing financial information or transactions), “commercial or legal interactions” (sale activities or behaviors; providing services to facilitate transactions). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claim 1 recites “receiving a request, from a …., to perform a transaction to transfer funds from a payor account over a first…, …being associated with a …corresponding with an element of the ….”, “determining, before the request reaches… whether a … different from the first…is available for processing the request based upon a determination that the …. meets a requirement of the transaction, the … having a least a reduced processing cost relative to the …”, “wherein determining whether the … is available includes applying a … model …to make a prediction whether the payor account will have sufficient funds at a settling time when at transaction processed over the …, the prediction based at least in part on spending patterns and predicted deposit timing associated with the payor account”, “upon determining that the … is available, converting the request, before the request is transmitted to the …., to a request for processing using the …. and processing the request using the …”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “wallet application”, “first payment rail”, “second payment rail” and” payment network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the claimed “converting the request … and processing the request using the second payment rail” limitations described only the result (processing using a second payment rail) but not how the conversion is accomplished. With respect to “trained” model, Applicant does not provide details regarding how the model is “trained”. Therefore, these functionalities are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Further, as the additional elements do not provide a practical application, they do not improve computer functionality and do not improve another technology or technical field.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is also directed to the abstract idea of “processing request to perform transaction to transfer funds from a payor account and comparing processing cost”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (mitigating risk; managing financial information or transactions), “commercial or legal interactions” (sale activities or behaviors; providing services to facilitate transactions). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 1, the exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 includes the additional elements such as “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “processor”, “wallet application”, “first payment rail”, “second payment rail” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the claimed “converting the request … and processing the request using the second payment rail” limitations described only the result (processing using a second payment rail) but not how the conversion is accomplished. With respect to “trained” model, Applicant does not provide details regarding how the model is “trained”. Therefore, these functionalities are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Further, as the additional elements do not provide a practical application, they do not improve computer functionality and do not improve another technology or technical field.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 2-14 and 20 further recite “wherein the …includes an …and wherein the requirement of the transaction includes a timing requirement (claim 2)”, “wherein the reduced processing cost includes financial …fees (claim 3)”, “wherein the request includes a request to process the transaction using …. (claim 4)”, “wherein the …. Is associated with a ….account associated with the payor account (claim 5)”, “wherein determining whether the …is available for processing the request comprises determining identification information for account holders of the … account (claim 6)”, “wherein determining whether the … is available for processing the request comprising predicting available funds of the …account (claim 7)”, “wherein detecting likely available funds includes predicting at least one of a subsequent … date or a subsequent … amount (claim 8)”, “wherein determining whether the …is available for processing the request comprising predicting whether the request is involves a product that is likely to be returned or disputed by a payor associated with the payor account (claim 9)”, “providing …request to request approval from a payor associated with the payor account to use the …. (claim 10)”, “requesting approval from a payee to use the … and upon receiving approval from the payee, process the request using the … (claim 11)”, “providing a reward to the payor subsequent to using the … to process the request (claim 12)”, “registering a … with the payor account and recoding a payor account preference for one of the … and at least the … (claim 13)”, “wherein the request is received from a … (claim 14)”, “the request includes a request to process the transaction using a … for accessing a …account associated with the payor account; determining whether the … is available for processing the request comprises: determining identification information for account holders of the … account and predicting available funds of the … account (claim 20)” which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (mitigating risk; managing financial information or transactions), “commercial or legal interactions” (sale activities or behaviors; providing services to facilitate transactions). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 2-14 and 20, such as “second payment rail (claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), “automated clearing house (ACH) (claim 2)”, “network (claim 3)”, “debit card system payment rail (claims 4, 5, 20)”, “direct deposit (claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 20)”, “user interface (claim 10)”, “wallet (claims 13, 14)”, “first payment rail (claim 13)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 2-14 and 20 are not patent eligible.
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 1-14 and 19-20 are 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.
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite “wherein determining whether the second payment rail is available includes applying a trained model to make a prediction whether the payor account will have sufficient funds at a settling time when a transaction processed over the second payment rail” which renders the claims indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear whether 1) the determining of whether the second payment rail is available is performed at a settling time 2) the prediction is made at a settling time 3) whether the account have sufficient fund is determined at a settling time. The claims are indefinite for having more than one possible meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite “wherein determining whether the second payment rail is available includes applying a trained model to make a prediction whether the payor account will have sufficient funds at a settling time when a transaction processed over the second payment rail” which renders the claims indefinite. More specifically, since the transaction is already being processed over the second payment rail (“when a transaction processed over the second payment trail”), it is unclear why the claim is still determining whether the second payment rail is available. The scope of the claim is unclear and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
All claims dependent from claims 1 and 19 inherit the same rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph.
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 have been searched and reviewed. No prior art has been found that discloses, either expressly or inherently, all of the limitations of the claimed invention. Castrechini et al. (US 2014/0351147 A1) discloses determining, before the request reaches a payment network, whether a second payment rail different from a first payment rail is available for processing the request based upon a determination that the second payment rail meets a requirement of the transaction and upon determining that the second payment rail is available, converting the request, before the request is transmitted to the payment network, to a request for processing using a second payment rail different from the first payment rail, and processing the request using the second payment rai., see at least paragraphs 0009, 0100 (“obtaining a payment method selection from the customer, determining that a more preferable payment method is available, providing a payment steering message to the customer, obtaining an updated payment method selection from the customer”), paragraph 0099 (allow the customer to selecta different payment method), paragraph 0105 (upon selecting one or more payment methods, a use may use a submit button to submit the payment method selection”) and Fig 6, but it does not teach “applying a trained model to make a prediction whether the payor account will have sufficient funds at a settling time when a transaction processed over the second payment rail, the prediction based at least in part on spending patterns and predicted deposit timing associated with the payor account” Khilnani et al. (US 2014/0279509 A1) discloses applying a model to make prediction based on patterns and select and rank available payment methods, see at least paragraph 0042, but also does not teach “applying a trained model to make a prediction whether the payor account will have sufficient funds at a settling time when a transaction processed over the second payment rail, the prediction based at least in part on spending patterns and predicted deposit timing associated with the payor account”. Even though Thomas et al. (US 2024/0193607 A1) discloses applying a model to make a prediction whether an account will have sufficient funds at a settling time based on spending patterns and predicted depositing timing, see at least paragraphs 0020, 0133 and 0140, the prediction is not used to determine whether a second payment rail is available before request reaches payment network. These newly added limitations, considered as a whole including all limitations in the independent claims, is not taught by prior arts found in examiner’s search, STIC search and similarity search. Therefore, no rejection under 102/103 is made.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Heath et al. (US 8,306,911 B1), directed to analyzing payment options based on prediction model.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1) the claims represent an improvement to computer network technology 2) the requests is converted from payment rail to the second and is reasonable only in computer transaction systems 3) a trained model is used and 4) the claims are similar to DDR. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant contends that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer network technology. However, the claims do not recite any improvement to the operation of a computer, payment network, wallet application or payment rail. Rather, the claims recite receiving a transaction request, determining whether an alternative payment rail should be used based on transaction requirements and predicted account funding and routing the transaction through the selected rail. Such activities constitute a commercial decision regarding how a financial transaction should be processed. The recited “trained model” is used only as a tool for predicting whether sufficient funds will be available at a future settlement time based on spending patterns and deposit timing. The claims do not recite any particular improvement to machine-learning technology, any new model architecture, any new training technique, or any improvement in computer functionality resulting form the model. Instead, the model merely automates the evaluation of financial information to support a business decision regarding transaction routing. Using a generic computer to perform such analysis does not constitute an improvement to computer technology. Applicant further argues that the conversion of the request from a first payment rail to a second payment rail can only be performed in computer transaction system. This argument is not persuasive because the mere fact that an abstract idea is performed in a computerized environment does not render the claims patent eligible. See Alice orp. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014). The claims use conventional computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any technological improvement in the manner by which transaction requests are converted or processed by the network itself. Rather, the conversion merely reflects the result of the underlying business determination that a different payment rail should be selected. Applicant’s reliance on DDR Holdings is also unpersuasive. In DDR Holdings, the claims address a problem specifically arising in computer networks and provided a technological solution that modified conventional Internet operation. Here, the claimed problem is determining which payment rail should be used while reducing cost and accounting for anticipated fund availability. This is a business problem involving financial transaction management rather than a technological problem arising from computer networks. The claims do not alter the functioning of a computer network or payment network nor does it provide a technical solution rooted in computer technology comparable to the claims in DDR Holdings. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights