CTNF 18/449,948 CTNF 81839 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Non-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, the amendments to the claims filed on March 4, 2026, and the Request for Continued Examination filed on May 20, 2026. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 20, 2026 has been entered. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation, “an in response” in line 23 should be --and --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 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 , 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; identifying, at the merchant payment services computer , a trigger event for the merchant; 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 automatically initiating, by the merchant payment services computer and in response to identification of the trigger event, a push process including, an originating payment services provider (PSP) computer enabling an electronic funds transfer (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, 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, 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. (St ep 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 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-13), have been fully considered however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argue that, “the hardware elements arranged and operating as specifically recited in Claim 1 clearly improve the operation of the overall system (resulting in improved computer network traffic by reducing the number of messages that need to be exchanged)” citing a plurality of cases (Remarks, pages 10-11). However, the cases cited are non-precedential and therefore their decisions are non-binding. Further, applicant’s arguments and the cited cases are not commensurate with the scope of the claims and specification. There is nothing recited in the claims about reducing the amount of bandwidth used or improving the computer network traffic be reducing the number of messages exchanged. The specification is equally silent as to any mention of or contemplation of an improvement in network traffic due to a reduction of the number of messages exchanged. Applicant’s arguments that, “identification of the trigger event and automatically initiating a push process…improves the operation of the computer system” (Remarks, pages 11-12) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. The use of a trigger to determine when to initiate a push process is described in the specification as, “the acquirer may have set the threshold in accordance with its service agreement with the merchant and as part of the merchant registration performed by the acquirer” (paragraph [0066, published specification). As such, the trigger is part of the business agreement and not an improvement to the operation of the computer system, as 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. Applicant’s arguments that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no outstanding prior art rejections (Remarks, pages 12-13), are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Arguments alleging the lack of prior art as evidence the claims contain an improvement and therefore are significantly more, this argument-sounding in § 102 novelty-is beside the point for a §101 inquiry. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 1: 10cv910 (LMB/TRJ), 2014 WL 5430956, at *11 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014) ("The concern of § 101 is not novelty, but preemption."). An abstract idea does not transform into an inventive concept just because the prior art does not disclose or suggest it. Conclusion 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 6/2/26 /LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 2 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 3 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 4 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 5 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 6 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 7 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 8 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/449,948 Page 9 Art Unit: 3619
Prosecution Insights