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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of January 8, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The claims are directed to an abstract idea encompassed by the "organizing human activity" grouping identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Specifically, the claims recite fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions, including: processing forms of payment for transactions, managing payment authorizations, handling payment options including rewards, installments, and currency conversions coordinating between merchants, payment processors, and users.
The claimed method, device, and storage medium recite a sequence of steps for receiving payment requests, obtaining user data, selecting payment service modules, invoking specific modules in a defined order, determining payment authorization data, providing authorization requests to payment platforms, storing authorization data, performing validation, and returning results. These steps collectively describe a system for managing payment transactions, which falls within the realm of economic activity and commercial interactions. The claims recite a judicial exception under the "organizing human activity" grouping. The limitations describe: receiving a form of payment request, obtaining user data including passenger name record data, determining payment transaction data, selecting and invoking payment service modules (pricing, BIN verification, reward integration, installment, alternative currency), determining payment authorization data, providing authorization requests to payment platforms, storing payment authorization data. performing validation processes, and providing payment authorization data via an API
These limitations describe methods of processing payments, which are fundamental economic practices. The claims organize human activity by structuring how payment transactions are processed, how payment options are evaluated, and how authorization data flows between parties in a commercial transaction. The claims recite a judicial exception under the "organizing human activity" grouping. The limitations describe receiving a form of payment request, obtaining user data including passenger name record data, determining payment transaction data, selecting and invoking payment service modules (pricing, BIN verification, reward integration, installment, alternative currency), determining payment authorization data, providing authorization requests to payment platforms, storing payment authorization data, performing validation processes, and providing payment authorization data via an API. These limitations describe methods of processing payments, which are fundamental economic practices. The claims organize human activity by structuring how payment transactions are processed, how payment options are evaluated, and how authorization data flows between parties in a commercial transaction.
The claims recite these components performing their normal functions in their normal manner. The passenger name record data is merely a type of information used in the payment process. The specific modules (pricing, BIN verification, reward integration, installment, alternative currency) are each described by their function in the payment processing workflow rather than any technological implementation. The defined order of invocation and the validation process with re-invocation describe decision-making logic for processing payments, which remains within the abstract idea.
The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality. Instead, they use computers as tools to implement a payment processing method. The specification describes the invention as addressing "the complexity of integrating multiple payment transactions across various software systems and sales channels" through "centralizing payment orchestration logic." This describes a business solution of centralizing payment operation, not a technological improvement to the computers themselves.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing payments without significantly more.
Claim 1 is recites the abstract idea of processing payments which is grouped under “organizing human activity… commercial or legal interactions” [commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or business relations) ] in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1 recites “a method comprising: at a … comprising …:
receiving a form of payment (FOP) request via a … from a …, wherein the FOP request is … with payment identification information, and wherein … provides access to …, a plurality of …, and a …;
obtaining user data associated with a transaction corresponding to the payment identification information, the user data including passenger name record (PNR) data;
determining payment transaction data based on the payment identification information and the user data;
selecting a … to access based on the payment transaction data and merchant configuration rules;
invoking, in a defined order determined by the payment transaction data and the merchant configuration rules, two or more of: (i) … to compute an amount for the transaction based on content of the PNR including partial payments; (ii) a bank identification number (Bl N) … to determine vendor routing and card validation; (iii) a … to compute ranks or values to support partial miles and cash selections; (iv) … to generate installment options and terms when applicable; and (v) an … to produce currency conversion offers and encode downstream partner requirements;
determining payment authorization data based on the respective outputs of the selected set of …;
determining an encoded payment authorization request based on the selected set of … and their respective outputs;
providing the encoded payment authorization request to a … based on the payment authorization data:
receiving payment authorization data from the …:
storing the payment authorization data in a …based on a FOP security protocol;
performing a validation process to verify each selected … was correctly selected and, upon detecting an inconsistency, re-invoking a same or different one of the … to correct the inconsistency;
providing, via … the FOP … at the …, the payment authorization data”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of processing payments and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions such as sales activities or business relations). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., a device comprising one or more processors, one or more payment processor servers, a plurality of FOP service modules, payment security database, FOP service modules, pricing module configured, bank identification number verification module configured, reward integration module configured, installment module configured, alternative currency module, payment platform server, front-end API which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. The limitation of “receiving a form of payment (FOP) request via a FOP orchestration service from a merchant device, … , and wherein the FOP orchestration service provides access to one or more payment processor servers, a plurality of FOP service modules, and a payment security database” is outside of the claimed device and therefore does no more than provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “determining payment authorization data by managing access to one or more of the plurality of FOP service modules based on the payment transaction data…”. The claim lacks technological details regarding how “managing access” is performed and is, therefore, no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 10 and 19 also recites the abstract idea of processing payments which is grouped under “organizing human activity… commercial or legal interactions” [commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or business relations) ] in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 10 includes the additional elements of “a device comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, merchant device, payment processor servers, a plurality of FOP service modules, payment security database, FOP service modules, pricing module configured, bank identification number verification module configured, reward integration module configured, installment module configured, alternative currency module, payment platform server, front-end API”. Claim 19 includes the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the computer program comprising a plurality of program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to, merchant device, payment processor servers, a plurality of FOP service modules, payment security database, FOP service modules, pricing module configured, bank identification number verification module configured, reward integration module configured, installment module configured, alternative currency module, payment platform server, front-end API”. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 2 recites “wherein the payment authorization data comprises at least one or more of payment orchestration data, payment instruments, traveler related data, and payment options” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein determining the payment authorization data by utilizing the selected to set of … based on the payment transaction data comprises selecting one or more of the … that are required to execute the FOP request” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “set of FOP service modules” as additional elements. . The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 4 recites “wherein providing the payment authorization request to the … based on the payment authorization data comprises encoding the payment authorization request based on the selected … that are required to execute the FOP request” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “payment platform server, set of FOP service modules” as additional elements. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 6 recites “wherein storing the payment authorization data in the security payment database based on the FOP security protocol comprises storing payment data in a user account associated with the user data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “security payment database” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the user account is associated with a …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “passenger name record (PNR) system” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the FOP request is associated with a travel booking request” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the FOP request is received from a travel provider server via a booking engine …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “booking engine” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 11 recites “wherein the payment authorization data comprises at least one or more of payment orchestration data, payment instruments, traveler related data, and payment options” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites “wherein determining the payment authorization data by utilizing the selected set of … based on the payment transaction data comprises selecting one or more of the … that are required to execute the FOP request” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “set of FOP service modules” as additional elements. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 13 recites “wherein providing the payment authorization request to the payment platform server based on the payment authorization data comprises encoding the payment authorization request based on the selected set of FOP service modules that are required to execute the FOP request” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “payment platform server, set of FOP service modules” as additional elements. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 14 recites “wherein the plurality of FOP service modules comprises at least one or more of: an FOP orchestrator module; a pricing module; a BIN verification module; a reward integration module; an installment module; an alternative currency module; a secure storage module; and an authentication module” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 15 recites “wherein storing the payment authorization data in the security payment database based on the FOP security protocol comprises storing payment data in a user account associated with the user data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “security payment database” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 16 recites “wherein the user account is associated with a …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “passenger name record (PNR) system” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 17 recites “wherein the FOP request is associated with a travel booking request” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the FOP request is received from a travel provider server via a booking engine …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “booking engine” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 20 recites “wherein the payment authorization data comprises at least one or more of payment orchestration data, payment instruments, traveler related data, and payment options” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites “wherein, responsive to an output from the BIN verification module indicating that an issuer capability and merchant rule set permit reward redemption, the method further comprises: executing concurrently the reward integration module, the installment module, and the alternative currency module to compute, in parallel, respective authorization parameters for reward redemption, installment offers, and alternative currency offers; and combining outputs of the concurrently executed modules with outputs of the pricing module to update the payment authorization data” as an additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite “invoking, in a defined order determined by the payment transaction data and the merchant configuration rules, two or more of: (i) a pricing module... (ii) a bank identification number (BIN) verification module... (iii) a reward integration module... (iv) an installment module... and (v) an alternative currency module". The specification fails to provide adequate written description for the concept of invoking these modules "in a defined order" as claimed. The specification describes various sequence diagrams in Figures 3A-3F showing different invocation sequences for different payment scenarios. However, the specification does not describe how this order is "determined by the payment transaction data and the merchant configuration rules." The specification states that the FOP orchestrator module "manages the FOP orchestration process and the requests to the various micro-services... in order to make sure everything is ready to perform the payment" (paragraph [0027]). This functional description does not provide any structural or procedural detail about how the order is determined or what specific orders correspond to which payment transaction data or merchant configuration rules. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed. (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I).
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20-21 are rejected as each depends on claims 1, 10, and 19.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite “performing a validation process to verify each selected FOP service module was correctly selected and, upon detecting an inconsistency, re-invoking a same or different one of the FOP service modules to correct the inconsistency". The term "inconsistency" is indefinite. The specification does not provide objective criteria for determining when an inconsistency exists. A claim is indefinite if it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear .
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20-21 are rejected as each depends on claims 1, 10, and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 25, 2026