Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 09-October-2023 Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for Continuation of 16/494,436, a 371 of International PCT/US2018/023,527, and Provisional 62/475,046 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 21-March-2018 and 22-March-2017, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
No additional information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mental Process and/or Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim recites “a … method comprising:
receiving, with at least one [person], a plurality of transaction records from a plurality of acquirer [entities], the plurality of transaction records comprising records of authorized merchant transactions conducted between merchants and account holders associated with a plurality of issuer [entities];
determining a type of transaction of each transaction record of the plurality of transaction records based on data associated with the transaction record;
in response to receiving each transaction record of the plurality of transaction records, assigning, with the at least one [person], the transaction record to a settlement window of a plurality of settlement windows based on the type of transaction and a plurality of settlement rules, each settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows associated with a different settlement time and corresponding to at least one settlement rule of the plurality of settlement rules;
at a first settlement time associated with a first settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows, processing, with the at least one [person] and a rules [manual], a first subset of transactions of the plurality of transaction records, the first subset of transactions assigned to the first settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows;
while processing the first subset of transactions, detecting, with the at least one [person], at least one transaction to withdraw from the first subset of transactions based on the rules [manual] and a risk associated with the at least one transaction to withdraw;
withdrawing, with the at least one [person] during the first settlement window, at least one transaction from the first subset of transactions, resulting in one or more remaining transactions;
recasting, with the at least one [person] during the first settlement window, the one or more remaining transactions;
clearing and settling, with the at least one [person], the one or more remaining transactions;
at a second settlement time associated with a second settlement window subsequent to the first settlement window, processing, with the at least one [person] and the rules [manual], a second subset of transactions of the plurality of transaction records, the second subset of transactions assigned to the second settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows;
while processing the second subset of transactions, detecting, with the at least one [person], at least one second transaction to withdraw from the second subset of transactions based on the rules [manual] and a risk associated with the at least one second transaction to withdraw;
withdrawing, with the at least one [person] during the second settlement window, at least one second transaction from the second subset of transactions, resulting in one or more remaining second transactions;
recasting, with the at least one [person] during the second settlement window, the one or more remaining second transactions;
clearing and settling, with the at least one [person], the one or more remaining second transactions; and
at a third settlement time associated with a third settlement window subsequent to the second settlement window, processing, with the at least one [person] and the rules [manual], a third subset of transactions of the plurality of transactions, the third subset of transactions assigned to the third settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. system, processor, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mental Process. The method recited above is a process of receiving data (e.g. transaction records), assigning the data to a time window for settlement, and performing clear and settlement for the data (e.g. write off the transaction data) for the given time window. These steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, which is an abstract idea under mental process, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Also, even if the claim requires a computer to perform the method, it may still recite a mental process, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer")”.
Additionally, under BRI, the claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices. The method recited above is directed towards the process of designating settlement times (e.g. assigning settlement windows) for the received transaction records and performing clearing and settlement of the transactions. Designating settlement times to perform settlement for the conducted transactions is fundamental economic principles or practices. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “computer”, “processor”, “system”, “engine”, and “computer program product” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The Specification does not provide further details regarding these components other than the generic recitation, which indicates that these components are merely off-the-shelf generic computer components available to the public, and does not require any specialized equipment or hardware, which are merely applied to perform their generic functionalities, such as: receive data, determine data, apply data, match data, assign data, write data, and transmit data. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer system or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to implement the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, determine, apply, assign, write, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite steps associated with the data, such as determining the settlement window based on the data associated with the transaction record, matching the settlement window to the data and further details regarding the data, assigning the records to the settlement window, clearing and settling the transaction data, etc., which are mere data manipulation. Mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Here, the steps of processing data to be used in the claimed process are incidental to the primary process of data analysis. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Additionally, data manipulation such as mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system (e.g. mere “apply it”) and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “further comprising: at the first settlement time, generating a settlement report for each transaction record assigned to the first settlement window, resulting in a plurality of first settlement reports; and forwarding the settlement report of the plurality of first settlement reports corresponding to the one or more remaining transactions to a settlement system after recasting the one or more remaining transactions.” The claims provide further steps to generating reports and forwarding data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein the additional element of a generic computer system is still merely applied to implement the abstract idea, along with mere data gathering and/or data manipulation, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein the at least one transaction to withdraw is detected based on analyzing the plurality of first settlement reports, and wherein the settlement report is forwarded after withdrawing the at least one transaction to withdraw.” The claims provide further steps to detect data by analyzing data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein the additional element of a generic computer system is still merely applied to implement the abstract idea, along with mere data gathering and/or data manipulation, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “wherein the rules engine corresponds to at least one settlement rule to each settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows.” The claims provide further details regarding the rules, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein the additional element of a generic computer system is still merely applied to implement the abstract idea, along with mere data gathering and/or data manipulation, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 7 and 14 recite “wherein the type of transaction comprises at least one of the following: an on-us transaction type, a credit transaction type, a debit transaction type, a merchant identification value transaction type, or any combination thereof.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. type of transaction data), which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein the additional element of a generic computer system is still merely applied to implement the abstract idea, along with mere data gathering and/or data manipulation, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claims, each claim recites using a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system (e.g. mere “apply it”) and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberger (US 8682790 B1), in view of Steinberg et al. (US 20060020812 A1), and in view of Reynolds et al. (US 20100094735 A1).
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, Rosenberger discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, with at least one processor, a plurality of transaction records from a plurality of acquirer systems (See Table 1 at [Col 2 Lines 60-65] to [Col 3 Lines 1-13]), which discloses different types of transaction records (e.g. restaurant, gasoline, shoe store, etc.) that are from a plurality of acquirer systems), the plurality of transaction records comprising records of authorized merchant transactions conducted between merchants and account holders associated with a plurality of issuer systems ([Col 3 Lines 64-67 to Col 4 Lines 1-5] “The account of the present invention is envisioned as any type of credit-based financial account for the purchase of any kind of item or service from any kind of merchant or service provider that is set up to accept payment from the account, where an individual or individuals are responsible for payment of the transactions. Well-known examples of such credit-based financial accounts include credit card accounts and charge card accounts for individuals and their family members”);
determining a type of transaction of each transaction record of the plurality of transaction records based on data associated with the transaction record ([Col 16 Lines 45-53] “Furthermore, an end user can use a merchant parameter to determine which billing cycle to post a given POS transaction to, where an end user can select from different merchant categories such as merchants related to groceries, travel, gasoline, home improvements, etc. …”);
in response to receiving each transaction record of the plurality of transaction records, assigning, with the at least one processor, the transaction record to a settlement window of a plurality of settlement windows based on the type of transaction and a plurality of settlement rules, each settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows associated with a different settlement time and corresponding to at least one settlement rule of the plurality of settlement rules ([Col 16 Lines 45-53] “Furthermore, an end user can use a merchant parameter to determine which billing cycle to post a given POS transaction to, where an end user can select from different merchant categories such as merchants related to groceries, travel, gasoline, home improvements, etc., and can elect to have, say "travel" and "home improvement" related transactions automatically post to at least one second billing cycle, whereas other POS transactions would by default automatically post to a first billing cycle” and see also [Col 2 Lines 35-43] “What is also inherent is that a given end user that seeks what the present invention has to offer will want to have the flexibility to use at least one second billing cycle for posting certain POS transactions, because, as the second billing cycle occurs after the first billing cycle, transactions that are ultimately posted on the second billing cycle will become due for payment at a later time, where those transactions that are posted to the first billing cycle will become due for payment sooner”);
at a first settlement time associated with a first settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows, processing, with the at least one processor and a rules engine, a first subset of transactions of the plurality of transaction records, the first subset of transactions assigned to the first settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows ([Col 8 Lines 24-35] “Such parameters can be used to automatically perform a POS transaction transfer from a first billing cycle to at least one second billing cycle, where parameters can comprise a date parameter, an amount threshold parameter, a billing cycle balance consumption threshold parameter, and a merchant parameter … Also, parameters can be viewed where a certain condition "triggers" an action of a parameter, such as a transfer (embodiment 100), or the posting of a POS transaction to a selected billing cycle (embodiment 200)”);
while processing the first subset of transactions, detecting, with the at least one processor, at least one transaction to withdraw from the first subset of transactions based on the rules engine … with the at least one transaction to withdraw ([Col 10 Lines 23-30] “Also, an end user can use an amount threshold parameter to perform a transfer. Here, an end user sets an amount threshold of, say, $500, so when any POS transaction at or above $500 is posted to a first billing cycle, the transaction is automatically transferred to at least one second billing cycle (where POS transactions below $500 would remain posted to the first billing cycle)”);
withdrawing, with the at least one processor during the first settlement window, at least one transaction from the first subset of transactions, resulting in one or more remaining transactions ([Col 10 Lines 23-30] “Here, an end user sets an amount threshold of, say, $500, so when any POS transaction at or above $500 is posted to a first billing cycle, the transaction is automatically transferred to at least one second billing cycle”);
recasting, with the at least one processor during the first settlement window, the one or more remaining transactions ([Col 10 Lines 25-30] “so when any POS transaction at or above $500 is posted to a first billing cycle, the transaction is automatically transferred to at least one second billing cycle (where POS transactions below $500 would remain posted to the first billing cycle)”);
…
at a second settlement time associated with a second settlement window subsequent to the first settlement window, processing, with the at least one processor and the rules engine, a second subset of transactions of the plurality of transaction records, the second subset of transactions assigned to the second settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows ([Col 16 Lines 45-47] “Furthermore, an end user can use a merchant parameter to determine which billing cycle to post a given POS transaction to” and see also [Col 2 Lines 35-43] “What is also inherent is that a given end user that seeks what the present invention has to offer will want to have the flexibility to use at least one second billing cycle for posting certain POS transactions, because, as the second billing cycle occurs after the first billing cycle, transactions that are ultimately posted on the second billing cycle will become due for payment at a later time, where those transactions that are posted to the first billing cycle will become due for payment sooner”);
while processing the second subset of transactions, detecting, with the at least one processor, at least one second transaction to withdraw from the second subset of transactions based on the rules engine … associated with the at least one second transaction to withdraw ([Col 10 Lines 23-30] “Also, an end user can use an amount threshold parameter to perform a transfer. Here, an end user sets an amount threshold of, say, $500, so when any POS transaction at or above $500 is posted to a first billing cycle, the transaction is automatically transferred to at least one second billing cycle (where POS transactions below $500 would remain posted to the first billing cycle)”);
withdrawing, with the at least one processor during the second settlement window, at least one second transaction from the second subset of transactions, resulting in one or more remaining second transactions ([Col 10 Lines 23-30] “Here, an end user sets an amount threshold of, say, $500, so when any POS transaction at or above $500 is posted to a first billing cycle, the transaction is automatically transferred to at least one second billing cycle”);
recasting, with the at least one processor during the second settlement window, the one or more remaining second transactions ([Col 10 Lines 25-30] “so when any POS transaction at or above $500 is posted to a first billing cycle, the transaction is automatically transferred to at least one second billing cycle (where POS transactions below $500 would remain posted to the first billing cycle)”);
…
at a third settlement time associated with a third settlement window subsequent to the second settlement window, processing, with the at least one processor and the rules engine, a third subset of transactions of the plurality of transactions, the third subset of transactions assigned to the third settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows ([Col 16 Lines 45-47] “Furthermore, an end user can use a merchant parameter to determine which billing cycle to post a given POS transaction to” and see also [Col 2 Lines 35-43] “What is also inherent is that a given end user that seeks what the present invention has to offer will want to have the flexibility to use at least one second billing cycle for posting certain POS transactions, because, as the second billing cycle occurs after the first billing cycle, transactions that are ultimately posted on the second billing cycle will become due for payment at a later time, where those transactions that are posted to the first billing cycle will become due for payment sooner”).
Although the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose the steps involved as exactly a “second settlement window” or “third settlement window”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to interpret that the reference teaches a plurality of billing cycles that can apply the different rules and parameters to assign transactions to the first, second, and third billing cycles, as disclosed [Col 1 Lines 61-67 to Col 2 Lines 1-3] “The present invention provides end users more account control, management, and flexibility of point of sale transactions and billing cycles, where the present invention provides for one or more different billing cycles for posting point of sale transactions. The present invention teaches transferring or selecting billing cycles for posting point of sale transactions. Such transferring or selecting of billing cycles enable end users to have more time before payment of point of sale transactions becomes due”.
Although Rosenberger teaches of assigning transactions to different billing cycles based on the predetermined rules, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of withdrawing transactions based on the rules and a risk associated with the transactions. However, Steinberg discloses:
while processing the first subset of transactions, detecting, with the at least one processor, at least one transaction to withdraw from the first subset of transactions based on the rules engine and a risk associated with the at least one transaction to withdraw (See Figure 6 – step 106, as disclosed [0021] “When the computerized system reacts to such a transaction or transactions as being suspect according to the predetermined rules therein, they then may be flagged. Once flagged, the system may disallow, restrict, or set aside the flagged transactions for further examination … This functionality is particularly useful in the case of certain transactions that may take time to "clear" because of industry custom or because of technological and/or logistical limitations (e.g., financial transactions such as securities sales, wire transfers, etc. that have settlement periods of a day, etc.)”);
withdrawing, with the at least one processor, at least one transaction from the first subset of transactions, resulting in one or more remaining transactions (See Figure 6 – step 110, as disclosed [0021] “Once flagged, the system may disallow, restrict, or set aside the flagged transactions for further examination”);
…
while processing the second subset of transactions, detecting, with the at least one processor, at least one second transaction to withdraw from the second subset of transactions based on the rules engine and a risk associated with the at least one second transaction to withdraw (See Figure 6 – step 106, as disclosed [0021] “When the computerized system reacts to such a transaction or transactions as being suspect according to the predetermined rules therein, they then may be flagged. Once flagged, the system may disallow, restrict, or set aside the flagged transactions for further examination … This functionality is particularly useful in the case of certain transactions that may take time to "clear" because of industry custom or because of technological and/or logistical limitations (e.g., financial transactions such as securities sales, wire transfers, etc. that have settlement periods of a day, etc.)”);
withdrawing, with the at least one processor, at least one second transaction from the second subset of transactions, resulting in one or more remaining second transactions (See Figure 6 – step 110, as disclosed [0021] “Once flagged, the system may disallow, restrict, or set aside the flagged transactions for further examination”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize flagging transactions, based on rules, to be withdrawn from the cycle for further examination as in Steinberg in the system executing the method of Rosenberger with the motivation of offering to enhance the systems to [0023] combat the aforementioned future threats and reduce the potential attempts at fraudulent transactions as taught by Steinberg over that of Rosenberger.
Although Rosenberger teaches the system of selecting a settlement window (e.g. billing cycle period) based on matching the settlement criteria and the type of transaction (e.g. merchant parameters specifying the transaction categories), the prior art does not explicitly recite the steps of performing a settlement function for the billing cycle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to imply that the settlement function would be performed simply by the user providing the payment amount due for the billing period, however, Reynolds teaches:
clearing and settling, with the at least one processor, the one or more remaining transactions (See Figure 8 – steps 810 to 816, as disclosed [0087] “The automated payments engine may compare the data of the settlement transaction record retrieved to see if it satisfies the payment condition. If so, the automated payments engine may pay the transaction amount using the payment method as specified in the payment rule (block 816)” and also [0016] “Some embodiments include procedures for processing payment transactions using a credit card account having a periodic billing cycle, including receiving, at a configuration server, automated payment configuration data from an accountholder associated with said credit card account … and processing said at least one settlement record using an automated payments engine in accordance with said automated payment configuration data to determine whether said payment transaction satisfies said payment condition and to automatically initiate payment for said transaction using said at least one payment method before the end of said periodic billing cycle, when the result of said determining is that said payment condition is satisfied”);
…
clearing and settling, with the at least one processor, the one or more remaining second transactions (See Figure 8 – steps 810 to 816, as disclosed [0087] “The automated payments engine may compare the data of the settlement transaction record retrieved to see if it satisfies the payment condition. If so, the automated payments engine may pay the transaction amount using the payment method as specified in the payment rule (block 816)” and also [0016] “Some embodiments include procedures for processing payment transactions using a credit card account having a periodic billing cycle, including receiving, at a configuration server, automated payment configuration data from an accountholder associated with said credit card account … and processing said at least one settlement record using an automated payments engine in accordance with said automated payment configuration data to determine whether said payment transaction satisfies said payment condition and to automatically initiate payment for said transaction using said at least one payment method before the end of said periodic billing cycle, when the result of said determining is that said payment condition is satisfied”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize automated payments (e.g. settlement function) for periodic billing cycles as in Reynolds in the system executing the method of Rosenberger, by which the system in Rosenberger teaches of different billing cycles to perform settlement functions (e.g. first billing cycle and second billing cycle to perform subsequent settlement function), with the motivation of offering to “prevent the accumulation of late fees or defaulting on the charges” by utilizing automated payments for settlements, and also provide “the ability to customize when the payments are made … providing more control over when and how payments are made in respect to transactions charged to their credit card account” [0002-0011] as taught by Reynolds over that of Rosenberger.
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Rosenberger teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the computer program product of claim 15, wherein the rules engine corresponds to at least one settlement rule to each settlement window of the plurality of settlement windows ([Col 8 Lines 24-35] “Such parameters can be used to automatically perform a POS transaction transfer from a first billing cycle to at least one second billing cycle, where parameters can comprise a date parameter, an amount threshold parameter, a billing cycle balance consumption threshold parameter, and a merchant parameter … Also, parameters can be viewed where a certain condition "triggers" an action of a parameter, such as a transfer (embodiment 100), or the posting of a POS transaction to a selected billing cycle (embodiment 200)”).
As per claims 7 and 14, Rosenberger teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, and the system of claim 13, wherein the type of transaction comprises at least one of the following:
an on-us transaction type, a credit transaction type, a debit transaction type, a merchant identification value transaction type, or any combination thereof ([Col 16 Lines 45-53] “Furthermore, an end user can use a merchant parameter to determine which billing cycle to post a given POS transaction to, where an end user can select from different merchant categories such as merchants related to groceries, travel, gasoline, home improvements, etc., and can elect to have, say "travel" and "home improvement" related transactions automatically post to at least one second billing cycle, whereas other POS transactions would by default automatically post to a first billing cycle”).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberger, in view of Steinberg, in view of Reynolds, and in view of KENNEDY (US 20160217466 A1).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, although Rosenberger teaches the system of selecting a settlement window (e.g. billing cycle period) based on matching the settlement criteria and transaction data (e.g. merchant categories, transaction amount, transaction date, etc.), the prior art does not seem to explicitly recite the steps generating and forwarding a settlement report. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to imply that the process of generating a settlement report would be performed as included in the conventional process of settlement. However, KENNEDY teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the computer program product of claim 15, further comprising:
at the first settlement time, generating a settlement report for each transaction record assigned to the first settlement window, resulting in a plurality of first settlement reports ([0057] “For example, acquirer computer system 120 may send a clearing report 304 containing a batch of all transactions reported by the acquirer computer system 120); and
forwarding the settlement report of the plurality of first settlement reports corresponding to the one or more remaining transactions to a settlement system after recasting the one or more remaining transactions ([0057] “The clearing report 304 may be received at a clearing and settlement module 134 of the processing system 130. The clearing and settlement module 134 of the processing system 130 may perform clearing and settlement based on the transactions identified by acquirer computer system 120. Settlement may occur on each business day and is conducted on a net basis for all transactions submitted during the previous settlement cycle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize generating and providing settlement reports to perform settlement as in KENNEDY in the system executing the method of Rosenberger, by which the system in Rosenberger teaches of different billing cycles to perform settlement functions (e.g. first billing cycle and second billing cycle to perform subsequent settlement function), with the motivation of offering to [0002-0004] reduce processing time and computer resources as taught by KENNEDY over that of Rosenberger.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberger, in view of Steinberg, in view of Reynolds, in view of KENNEDY, and in view of Provinse (US 20020026416 A1).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Rosenberger may not explicitly disclose, but Provinse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, the system of claim 10, and the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the at least one transaction to withdraw is detected based on analyzing the plurality of first settlement reports, and wherein the settlement report is forwarded after withdrawing the at least one transaction to withdraw ([0076] “In one specific embodiment, a Payment Reconciliation Module for the client is updated to reflect the total amount of the current Billed Transaction Report (step 706). The Payment Reconciliation Module is an accounting for the Billed Transaction Report. For example, the Payment Reconciliation Module may include an entry for the total of the Billed Transaction Report and an entry for the "open" amount remaining … The user can then match the remaining balance with a particular transaction on the Billed Transaction Report and determine which item was unpaid by the client (step 710). This transaction can then be removed from the Billed Transactions Report list and placed in the Unresolved Transactions list for further research on why the transaction was not paid (step 711)” and see Figure 8 for the report displaying the report along with the withdrawn transactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize withdrawing transactions from analyzing the billed transaction report and providing the report with the withdrawn amount as in Provinse in the system executing the method of Rosenberger, with the motivation of offering to provide [0011] “an improved system and method for account reconciliation that expands and builds on traditional matching techniques” as taught by Provinse over that of Rosenberger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10 to 12, filed 10 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the claim limitation “the plurality of transaction records comprising records of authorized merchant transactions conducted between merchants and account holders associated with a plurality of issuer system”, the transactions conducted with merchants posted on the credit-based financial accounts (i.e. account holders associated with a plurality of issuer system) is disclosed by Rosenberger as cited [Col 3 Lines 64-67 to Col 4 Lines 1-5], wherein Rosenberger still teaches of assigning the transaction records to a plurality of settlement windows (i.e. different billing cycles). Although Rosenberger may recite a different term from the invention (i.e. settlement windows vs. billing cycles), the prior art reference still teaches the same functionalities or the process of assigning transaction records to different time windows based on rules, and the combination of the referenced prior arts (e.g. Rosenberger, Steinberg, and Reynolds) teaches the claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12 to 15, filed 10 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claims, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Additionally, data manipulation such as mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system (e.g. mere “apply it”) and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) under step 2B.
With respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional activities (WURC), it is also discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above that the additional elements are generic computer components merely applied to perform their generic functionalities, wherein the Specification does not provide further details regarding these components other than the generic recitation, which indicates that these components are merely off-the-shelf generic computer components available to the public, and does not require any specialized equipment or hardware. This is also applied in the analysis under Step 2B, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(I)(A):
“Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));”
See also MPEP 2106.05(I)(B):
“The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);”
Also, in view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.”
Applicant contends, see pages 14 to 15, that the amended claims are eligible under Step 2A Prong One, because the claims are directed to a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, determine, apply, assign, write, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Blackhurst et al. (US 20110191238 A1) discloses [0048] “Settlement rules 32 may apply to characteristics of the settlement, such as the settlement time 32-1, the settlement location 32-2, settlement channel 32-3 or the like. In addition, settlement rules 32 may apply to transaction product/service type 32-4, transaction type 32-5 or any o