DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant filed the amendment on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19, and 21 are amended. Claims 1-21 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
3. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Amended independent claims do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
4. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims as a whole are directed to rerouting a transaction between payment instruments which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity is similar to commercial activities”.
5. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – “[t]he claims recite specific protocols for deploying a preauthorized routing packet that adapts a processing network for dynamic real-time automated rerouting”. And concludes that “the claims recite a particular protocol that adapts a network for dynamic rerouting. As such, the claims would integrate the alleged abstract idea into an eligible practical application”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mentioned above the claim features performed by using the computer components. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
6. Rejection of claims 5, 11, and 19 based on “Lack of Algorithm” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
7. Rejection of claims 2, 7, 16-17 and 21 based on “Lack of antecedent basis” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 2, 7, 16-17 and 21 based on “Lack of antecedent basis” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejections of claim 15 based on “Hybrid Claim”, “Means Plus Function”, and “Unclear Scope” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 8 and 9 based on “Unclear Scope” due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
8. Rejection of claims 8-16 and 20 due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
9. Applicant argues that prior art references Webber et al. fails to show or suggest amended claims 1, 8, and 15 limitations, and Pletz et al. fails to cure the deficiencies of Webber et al.
Applicant arguments are persuasive, prior art references do not teach the following claim limitations “generating a preauthorized routing packet encoding payment instrument” and “deploying the routing packet to a second processing network”, therefore, claims rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-21 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.
12. In the instant case, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a “method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and system for adapting network protocols for real-time rerouting of an electronic transaction”.
13. Claim 1 recites “rerouting a transaction between payment instruments”. Specifically, claim recites “receiving a request to pair a first payment instrument associated with a first party and … with a second payment instrument associated with a second party…; generating a preauthorized routing packet encoding payment instrument information associated with the first payment instrument; and deploying the routing packet … associated with the second payment instrument; and … receiving transaction information… the transaction information comprising a charge initiated using the second payment instrument; accessing the routing packet and determining transaction routing is active on the second payment instrument; in response to a determination that transaction routing is active, using … routing the charge to the first payment instrument…”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
14. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as ‘an electronic transaction”, “a mobile device application, running on a device processor”, “a first processing network”, “a second processing network”, “generating a preauthorized routing packet encoding payment instrument information associated with the first payment instrument”, “a point of sale”, and “a network router” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “deploying the routing packet to the second processing network associated with the second payment instrument” and “receiving transaction information from a point of sale, the transaction information comprising a charge initiated using the second payment instrument” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
15. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform rerouting a transaction between payment instruments and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
16. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
17. Claims 8 and 15 also recite “rerouting a transaction between payment instruments”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
18. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claims 8 and 15 such as “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “a processor on a computer system”, “a point-of-sale electronic transaction”, “a first processor running a mobile device application at a mobile device”, “a transaction processing network”, “a second processor running the transaction processing network”, “a point of sale”; and “an electronic transaction”, “a first transaction processing network”, “a second transaction processing network”, “a mobile device application, running on a device processor”, “generate a preauthorized routing packet encoding payment instrument information”, “a point of sale”, and “a network router” respectively, do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. And, with respect to “transmitting the routing packet to a transaction processing network associated with the second payment instrument” and “receiving transaction information from a point of sale, the transaction information comprising a charge initiated using the second payment instrument” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
19. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform rerouting a transaction between payment instruments and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
20. Hence, claims 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
21. Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “… receiving approval of the pairing from a party associated with the second payment instrument”. The additional element such as “the mobile device application” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “further comprising encrypting the routing packet using a private key associated with a preexisting … between an enterprise …”. The additional elements such as “a preexisting channel”, “the mobile device application”, and “the processing network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 4, 10, and 18 further describe the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as each recites “wherein accessing the routing packet further comprises validating a condition encoded in the routing packet against the transaction information”.
Dependent claim 5 recites the additional elements “the routing packet is a QR code” and “the processing network comprising a decryption key configured to decrypt the QR code” which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 20 further describe the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as each recites “… a limit associated with routing the charge initiated by the second payment instrument to the first payment instrument”. The additional element such as “the QR code encoding” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “wherein routing the charge to the first payment instrument comprises rerouting the charge … associated with the second payment instrument … associated with the first payment instrument”. The additional elements such as “the second processing network” and “the first processing network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “further comprising … encrypting the routing packet using a private key …”. The additional elements such as “the first processor”, “the mobile device application”, and “the transaction processing network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 11 and 19 recite the additional element “the routing packet is a QR code” which represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 13 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “wherein the limit is a time limit”.
Dependent claim 14 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “wherein the limit is a credit limit”.
Dependent claim 16 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “… receive approval of the pairing from a party associated with the second payment instrument”. The additional element such as “the mobile device application” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 17 recites further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “… to encrypt the routing packet using a private key …”. The additional elements such as “the mobile device application”, “a preexisting channel”, “the mobile device application”, and “the second transaction processing network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 21 further describes the abstract idea of rerouting a transaction between payment instruments, as it recites “the routing packet comprising an instruction to route the charge … associated with the second payment instrument … associated with the first payment instrument”. The additional elements such as “the second transaction processing network” and “the first transaction processing network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Conclusion
22. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
23. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
24. 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.
25. Claims 1-21 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.
Lack of antecedent basis
26. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the routing packet” in paragraph starting with “deploying…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the routing packet” in paragraph starting with “transmitting…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the routing packet” in paragraph starting with “deploy…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “the preauthorized routing packet”.
27. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8, and 15 because claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively due to their dependency.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20130110670A1 – Webber et al. – Discloses a method for monitoring, transmitting, and recording usage of a computer or mobile device connected to a network, the one or more programs including instructions for establishing a first account, the settings of the first account being stored in a database.
US10002348B1 – Doctor et al. – Discloses a payment routing and processing platform that configured to collect various attributes for use in identifying an optimal payment processor for a particular payment transaction message.
US20120265625A1 – Pletz et al. – Discloses a method and a system for implementing a card product or access mechanism with multiple relationships with an issuing entity, where each relationship may be defined by one or more sets of rules that are customized for a particular customer.
US20190087815A1 – Goldschmidt – Discloses methods, apparatus and systems for providing merchant quick response code services, wherein a digital enablement services computer receives a request for a merchant quick-response code from a merchant acquirer financial institution computer.
US20170053276A1 – Gullett et al. – Discloses systems and methods for transaction routing in accordance with embodiments of the invention, wherein a method for routing transactions includes obtaining transaction data using an account servicing server system.
29. 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.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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 D 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 6, 2026