Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on August 15, 2023, the amendments to the claims filed on August 1, 2025, the Request for Continued Examination filed on November 11, 2025, and the amendments to the claims filed on March 4, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation, “an in response” in line 22 should be --and--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation, “tracking, by a card payment network computer, transaction information from a merchant device for the at least one merchant and transaction information from an acquirer device for the supporting acquirer financial institution for the respective merchant” in lines 9-11, similarly recited in claim 9, is not supported by the specification. The specification sets forth that the payment network computer as element 108a. However, paragraph [0017] of the published specification sets forth that it is element 110 that tracks and stores the transactions, “the payment card issuer server computer 110 may perform such functions as (a) receiving and responding to requests for authorization of payment account transactions to be charged to payment accounts issued by the FI; and (b) tracking and storing transactions and maintaining account records”. Figure 3 further sets forth that elements 110 and 108a are separate elements. Therefore, the limitations are not supported by the specification. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 are considered to be rejected by virtue of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving, by a merchant payment services computer and via at least one of: a direct Application Programming Interface (API) and a portal, merchant bank account details for at least one merchant supported by an acquirer financial institution; authenticating, the at least one merchant by the merchant payment services computer and via an identification and verification process; storing, by the merchant payment services computer, for the authenticated at least one merchant the merchant bank account details in a storage device; tracking, by a card payment network computer, transaction information from a merchant device for the at least one merchant and transaction information from an acquirer device for the supporting acquirer financial institution for the respective merchant; receiving, by the merchant payment services computer from the card payment network computer, tracked card account transaction information for a merchant and the supporting acquirer between a first time and a second time; calculating, by the merchant payment services computer based on the card account transaction information and using any current charge-back transactions, a net position for the merchant with respect to the supporting acquirer financial institution; tracking, by the payment services computer, a running total of an amount due to the merchant from the supporting acquirer financial institution; retrieving, by the merchant payment services computer from the storage device, merchant bank account details of the merchant including the merchant’s deposit account; and initiating, by the merchant payment services computer and in response to a trigger event, an electronic funds transfer (EFT) with an EFT system comprising an originating payment services provider (PSP) computer enabling the EFT system to directly credit the merchant’s deposit account in an amount equal to the merchant’s net position which provides the merchant with quick access to cash at the merchant’s deposit account.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Initiating an EFT recites a fundamental economic practice / a commercial interaction, including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice / a commercial interaction, including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The merchant payment services computer/merchant services computer, storage device, card payment network computer, merchant device, acquirer device, and an ETF system comprising an originating payment services provider computer of an electronic funds transfer system in Claim 1 and a merchant payment services computer, payment card network computer, and an electronic funds system comprising an originating payment services provider computer in Claim 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The API and portal in Claims 1 and 9 appears to be just software. Claim 9 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite merchant payment services computer/merchant services computer, storage device, card payment network computer, merchant device, acquirer device, and an ETF system comprising an originating payment services provider computer of an electronic funds transfer system in Claim 1 and a merchant payment services computer, payment card network computer, and an electronic funds system comprising an originating payment services provider computer in Claim 9 and the API and portal in Claims 1 and 9. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification pg 3, lines 4-15; pg 7, line 3 – pg 8, line 28 about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 are further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 9 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-4 and 10-12 further define the merchant bank account details received; Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 further define calculations to determine the merchant banks net position; Claims 7 and 15 further defines initiating an ETG to satisfy a negative balance; Claims 8 and 16 further defines the ETF as an ACH. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-8 and 10-16 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-16 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-14), have been fully considered however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Remarks, pages 8-10). However, the claims clearly recite an automatic payment function that allows automated calculation of settlements that are due to merchants and immediately crediting or debiting the merchant’s bank account. This concept pertains to a commercial interaction, including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments citing recent PTAB decisions (Remarks, pages 10-11) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the decision that applicant is referencing. Ex Parte Desjardins is directly related to the evaluation of claim eligibility when, “evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence”, which are not elements of the recited claims.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims solve the technical problem of, “the set up of such payments is complex” and that the system, “simplifies management of merchants by acquirers, and in particular simplifies the transactions via the EFT payment network rails” (Remarks, pages 12-14), are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. The claims may recite an improvement to the manner in which a transaction is initiated by collecting information over a predefined period of time from the card payment network computer and initiating payment based upon the collected information, which may improve the commercial interaction, but an improvement to the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. Therefore, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached on (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
3/4/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619