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 Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 03/31/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-4, 6-7, 21 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 8-11, 13-14, 22 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., machine), and claims 15-18, 20, 23 are directed to a computer program product (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “identifying, …, a transaction request for a requesting entity, wherein (i) the transaction request comprises a transaction, a transaction amount, and a recipient of the transaction, (ii) the recipient of the transaction is a beneficiary of interest, and (iii) the transaction corresponds to a payment type; identifying, …, a candidate alternative payment type for the transaction; determining, …, (a) a payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and (b) a payment type score for the candidate alternative payment type; selecting, …, the candidate alternative payment type as a candidate enhanced alternative payment type based on comparison between the payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and the payment type for the candidate alternative payment type; identifying, … based on the transaction request, a beneficiary account for the beneficiary of interest; determining, historical transaction data associated with the beneficiary account; determining, … based on the beneficiary account and the historical transaction data, a payment metric set for the candidate enhanced alternative payment type; determining, …, whether the payment metric set satisfies a payment metric threshold; in response to determining the payment metric set satisfies the payment metric threshold, selecting, … the candidate enhanced alternative payment type; generating, …, the beneficiary optimization response, wherein the beneficiary optimization response comprises the selected candidate enhanced alternative payment type and the payment metric set; and providing, …, the beneficiary optimization response.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for transacting with beneficiaries using a variety of different payment types). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “identification circuitry”, “processing circuitry”, and “communications hardware”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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, the additional elements of “identification circuitry”, “processing circuitry”, and “communications hardware” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 8:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 8 recites the at least following limitations of “… identify a transaction request for a requesting entity, wherein (i) the transaction request comprises a transaction, a transaction amount, and a recipient of the transaction, (ii) the recipient of the transaction is a beneficiary of interest, and (iii) the transaction corresponds to a payment type, identify a candidate alternative payment type for the transaction, determine (a) a payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and (b) a payment type score for the candidate alternative payment type, select the candidate alternative payment type as a candidate enhanced alternative payment type based on comparison between the payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and the payment type for the candidate alternative payment type, identify, based on the transaction request, a beneficiary account for the beneficiary of interest, determine, historical transaction data associated with the beneficiary account, determine, based on the beneficiary account and the historical transaction data, a payment metric set for the candidate enhanced alternative payment type, determine whether the payment metric set satisfies a payment metric threshold; in response to determining the payment metric set satisfies the payment metric threshold, select the candidate enhanced alternative payment type, and generate the beneficiary optimization response, wherein the beneficiary optimization response comprises selected candidate enhanced alternative payment type and the payment metric set; and … to: provide the beneficiary optimization response.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for transacting with beneficiaries using a variety of different payment types). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 8 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “identification circuitry” and “communications hardware”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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, the additional elements of “identification circuitry” and “communications hardware” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 15:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 15 recites the at least following limitations of “… identify a transaction request for a requesting entity, wherein (i) the transaction request comprises a transaction, a transaction amount, and a recipient of the transaction, (ii)the recipient of the transaction is a beneficiary of interest, and (iii) the transaction corresponds to a payment type; identify a candidate alternative payment type for the transaction; determine (a) a payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and (b) a payment type score for the candidate alternative payment type; select the candidate alternative payment type as a candidate enhanced alternative payment type based on comparison between the payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and the payment type for the candidate alternative payment type; identify, based on the transaction request, a beneficiary account for the beneficiary of interest; determine historical transaction data associated with the beneficiary account; determine, based on the beneficiary account and the historical transaction data, a payment metric set for the candidate enhanced alternative payment type; determine whether the payment metric set satisfies a payment metric threshold; in response to determining the payment metric set satisfies the payment metric threshold, select, the candidate enhanced alternative payment type; generate the beneficiary optimization response, wherein the beneficiary optimization response comprises the selected candidate enhanced alternative payment type and the payment metric set; and provide the beneficiary optimization response.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for transacting with beneficiaries using a variety of different payment types). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 15 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer program product”, “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, and “an apparatus”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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, the additional elements of “a computer program product”, “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, and “an apparatus” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-23 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16: simply provide further definition to “the authorization response” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the authorization response is indicative of affirmative instructions to proceed with the transaction and further comprises an updated payment type for the transaction; and effectuating, by effectuation circuitry, the transaction associated with the transaction request, wherein the transaction is effectuated in accordance with a set of operations associated with the updated payment type amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., effectuation circuitry).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17: simply provide further definition to “the updated payment type” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating wherein the updated payment type is the selected candidate enhanced alternative payment type do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising identifying, by the identification circuitry, beneficiary account data from the beneficiary account that is associated with the candidate enhanced alternative payment type; and determining, by the identification circuitry, an enhanced alternative payment type count, wherein (i) the enhanced alternative payment type count is indicative of a number of occurrences of successful historical payments of the candidate enhanced alternative payment type that have occurred within a predefined time period and (ii) the enhanced alternative payment type count is included as a payment metric in the payment metric set for the candidate enhanced alternative payment type), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the identification circuitry amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the identification circuitry) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20: simply provide further definition to “the identified transaction request” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating wherein the identified transaction request corresponds to an inquiry request do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7 and 14: simply provide further definition to “the one or more candidate enhanced alternative payment types” recited in independent claims 1 and 8. Simply stating that wherein the candidate enhanced alternative payment type at least one of an automated clearing house payment type, a wire transfer payment type, an electronic check payment type, a peer-to-peer transfer payment type, an automated teller machine payment type, a point-of-sale payment type, or cryptocurrency payment type amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., an automated teller machine payment type, a point-of-sale payment type, or cryptocurrency payment type).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 21, 22, and 23: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising determining, by the identification circuitry, whether the candidate alternative payment type is capable of facilitating the transaction, wherein the candidate alternative payment type is identified for the transaction in response to determining the candidate alternative payment type is capable of facilitating the transaction), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the identification circuitry amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the identification circuitry) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument, Step 2A, Prong One: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants respectfully submit that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. At Step 2A, Prong One, the Office Action alleges that claim 1 "as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall[s] within the 'Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity' grouping of abstraction ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for transacting with beneficiaries using a variety of different payment types)" … But the identified claim elements here fail to recite any activity that involves multiple people. As a result, using the definitional language set forth in the MPEP itself, the identified claim elements cannot recite a "commercial interaction." Accordingly, characterization of the claims under the commercial or legal interactions sub-grouping either (i) is improper and must be withdrawn. The identified claim elements fail to recite fundamental economic practices or principles. As an initial matter, the Office Action fails to articulate any supposedly "fundamental" practice or principle that is recited in the claims. Rather, the Office Action has merely identified a series of claim elements and stated, without reasoning, that that series of claim elements is abstract. The MPEP is explicit in its requirement that "[t]he rejection must explain why those claim limitations set forth or describe a judicial exception." MPEP 2106.07(a). Accordingly, if this is the basis of the Step 2A, Prong One finding, the Office Action has failed to make a prima facie case. The identified claim elements also fail to recite commercial or legal interactions (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) … For the above reasons, Applicant submits that the claims cannot properly be characterized as certain methods of organizing human activity and that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, the inquiry should end at this step (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for transacting with beneficiaries using a variety of different payment types). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument, Step 2A, Prong Two: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants respectfully submit the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application, and thus the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two. Regarding this step, the Office Action, on page 4, alleges that the alleged judicial exception "is not integrated into a practical application," as "the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application" … First, the proffered reasoning is circular. The Office Action argues that "the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application" … Second, the Office Action fails to consider the numerous "additional elements" set forth above, which demonstrate both a practical application of any ostensibly recited commercial interactions, and which further ensure that the claims set forth an improvement to a technical filed. These points are addressed in turn below. The claims recite a practical application of any commercial interaction ostensibly recited therein. Ostensibly, the offending "commercial interaction" is "transacting with beneficiaries using a variety of different payment types." See Office Action, page 4. If this is the case, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims illustrate one practical application of determining those different payment types. For example, specific limitations are recited in independent claim 8 to candidate alternative payment type for the transaction and to determine whether the payment metric set satisfies a payment metric threshold. In particular, "identification circuitry configured to:" "identify a candidate alternative payment type for the transaction," "determine (a) a payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and (b) a payment type score for the candidate alternative type" … Further, when considered as a whole, these limitations cannot properly (or reasonably) be considered a drafting effort designed to monopolize all ways for determining the payment types in question, instead setting forth just one practical application of this general approach … The additional elements (and combination of elements) further demonstrate that the claims provide an improvement to other technologies or technical fields. For example, claim 1 recited a combination of additional elements including, among other things "identifying, ..., a candidate alternative payment type for the transaction," … Additionally, these additional elements provide improvements to computer functionality. In this regard, the additional elements optimize computational resources by allowing for the automatic effectuation of a transaction in a particular payment type. As such, the requesting entity may be assured that the beneficiary and the payment type were determined to satisfy the criteria required for such a transaction without having manual input. See specification paragraph [0006]. On at least these bases, the inquiry should end at Step 2A, Prong Two, because the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 4-6).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 further to the abstract idea include additional elements of “identification circuitry”, “processing circuitry”, and “communications hardware”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
3. Applicant’s Argument, Step 2B: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants respectfully submit that the combinations of features recited in the claims amount to "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception. The claims provide elements that are not well-understood, conventional, or routine and which provide specific technical improvements to solve technical problems (as described above) that no human, prior conventional system, and/or traditional user interfaces are able to provide. Evidence of this is the lack of a prior art rejection, which comprises an admission by the Examiner that (1) no one has performed the claimed approach before, and (2) that it would not have been obvious to do so. The Office Action references MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) to argue that "[n]one of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea." See Office Action, pages 5 and 19. However, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) does not support this position. That subsection is self-titled "Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process" (emphasis added). Here, the claims do not recite an existing process, and the Examiner has implicitly agreed to this fact because there is no prior art rejection. Therefore, the Office Action cannot rely on MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) to substantiate a Step 2B position. Accordingly, because there is no appropriate basis for the Office Action's Step 2B position, the only logical result is that the combinations of features recited in the claims amount to "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception, and the claims are further eligible at Step 2B. For the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims recite eligible subject matter. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Page 7).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 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, the additional elements of “identification circuitry”, “processing circuitry”, and “communications hardware” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
8. The best prior art of record, GAIVIRONSKY et al. (U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0065291), hereinafter, “GAIVIRONSKY”, and Masie (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0290178), hereinafter, “Masie”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application amended claim limitations of " identifying, by the identification circuitry, a candidate alternative payment type for the transaction; determining, by the identification circuitry, (a) a payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and (b) a payment type score for the candidate alternative payment type; selecting, by the identification circuitry, the candidate alternative payment type as a candidate enhanced alternative payment type based on comparison between the payment type score for the payment type of the transaction and the payment type for the candidate alternative payment type; identifying, by processing circuitry and based on the transaction request, a beneficiary account for the beneficiary of interest; determining, by the identification circuitry, historical transaction data associated with the beneficiary account; determining, by the identification circuitry and based on the beneficiary account and the historical transaction data, a payment metric set for the candidate enhanced alternative payment type."
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights