DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received November 17, 2025. Claim(s) 6 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 8, 10-14, 18 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Priority
Applications No. 18472028 filed 09/21/2023 is a Continuation in Part of 18145627 , filed 12/22/2022 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein 18145627 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63294406 , filed 12/29/2021.
Applicant Name/Assignee: Mastercard International:
Inventor: Mehrhoff, Shawn
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed January 08, 2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points to the USPTO 101 guidance 2014, guidance for 2A prong 1, prong 2 and 2B analysis, MPEP 2106.04 subsection II, MPEP 2106.07(a), MPEP 2106.07(a), Thales Visionix V US , SRI Int'l V Cisco Systems and Alice, arguing that the claimed limitations in light of the guidance and court decisions is not directed toward mental concepts under step 2A prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as the claimed limitations cannot entirely be perform using mental processes by the human mind. Applicant argues that the amended limitations recite outputting data representations over communication network to a merchant, receiving a payment request over payment network, and completing a payment transaction responsive to the transaction request. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not directed toward the abstract category of mental concept under step 2A prong 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant's argument. Except for the limitation "complete payment transaction", nothing in the claim limitations as a whole precludes the limitations from being performed using mental processes. The argued "network" is merely a field of use for implementing the transaction. The limitation "receive payment transaction message identify accounts corresponding to account holder based on message" mimic mental concepts of observation and analysis of the message received where the human mind can identify accounts based on the received observed message. The limitation "implement plurality of payment splits among plurality of account corresponding to alternative definitions including payment split pursuant to a first definition each payment split assigning a proportion of transaction amount to each of two or more accounts" can reasonably be performed using mental concepts. The human mind for example can recognize in a transaction payment what payment options for payment available can be applied toward a transaction. Some examples include the human mind recognizing whether credit is available for use, or coupons or rebates or promotions offered can be applied toward the transaction beyond the user account for payment which splits the payment among the different options for payment. The limitation "generate a score representing likelihood of settlement via two or more accounts" can be reasonably be analyze by the human mind. The human mind is capable of calculating a value representing likelihood of settlement of using more than one funding source based on analysis of funding options and communication of result. The limitation "receive a transaction request from the merchant requesting payment transaction the human mind is capable of receiving information related to requesting to a payment. Accordingly, except for the result of the transaction process of completing the transaction, the claim limitations as a whole can reasonably be performed using mental processes. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to Alice, Benson, BASCOM, USPTO example 34, argues that under step 2A prong 2, the claimed limitations arguing that involving abstract concepts (transactions) does not preclude patent eligibility. Applicant argues the present limitations provide the merchant with scores based on information the merchant does not have access to, to enable the merchant to select a date and split payment transaction by relying on scores and additional information to make the selection and payment request. Applicant argues that similar to example 34, the claimed subject matter improves electronic payment processing for merchants. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that applicant does not identify what technology is improve. Rather applicant's argument focuses on the advantage of the merchant to rely on scores to select payment options which merely provides a process to address risk, not technology. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that similar to example 34, the claimed system is arranged in an unconventional and non-generic combination where the claimed system makes disparate storehouses of knowledge available at point of transaction decisioning providing a technology based solution. Applicant's argument is high level failing to point to how example 34 is applicable to the current limitations. Applicant does not point out what in the claimed technology and/or its functions are unconventional or non-routine. It is well known in the art to use technology for a transaction where the technology is applied to receive data, identify accounts, implement payment splits amount different accounts where payments are split according to an assigned proportional of the transaction amount, generate a score representing likelihood of settlement, and output the result, where a transaction request is received and in response to the score applying payment splits and performing the transaction. See the previous rejection under 2B. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to the arguments above, arguing that based on the patent eligibility above, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are also patent eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees, see response above, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points to the amended limitation "implement a plurality of payment splits among the plurality of accounts pursuant to a plurality of corresponding alternative definitions including a first payment split pursuant to a first definition specified by the account holder in an account setup process and the specification para 0017, 0038, 0099, 0101 which enables the merchant to select a payment split payment transaction, is not taught by the prior art references. Applicant points to Hinghole arguing the prior art reference teaches the selection performed by the user account holder to pay bills, whereas the amended limitations require the merchant to pick the split payment option it prefers. Applicant points to Williams which teaches transmitting the score to the merchant to provide risk measurement so the merchant can decide to approve the payment, but does not teach the merchant selecting payment split alternative. Applicant is arguing the limitations individually. The limitations recites "implement a plurality of payment splits among the plurality of accounts pursuant to a plurality of corresponding alternative definitions including a first payment split pursuant to a first definition specified by the accountholder in an account setup process, each of the payment splits assigning a proportion of the transaction amount to each of two (2) or more of the plurality of accounts; generate a scaled score representing the likelihood of settlement of the assigned proportion of the transaction amount via each of the two (2) or more accounts corresponding to each of the plurality of payment splits on a date" where the score is outputted to a merchant, where the transaction request is received from the merchant requesting payment transaction adopting one or the payment splits other than first payment split. The limitations do not recite the merchant picking payment option split preferred. Rather the request from the merchant merely request payment split other than first payment split. This does not conflict with Hinghole teaching of the account holder picking/assigning payment split options. Furthermore, applicant is arguing the limitations individually. According to 2145, IV, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The prior art Hinghole teaches receiving a request for payment from the payor to pay bills, whereas the prior art Williams teaches receiving a request for payment from the payee to pay bills where accounts for payment are selected based on scored risk of likelihood of payment. According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. As both Hinghole and Williams are directed toward selecting payments based on scoring of the likelihood of a payment being made, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, these reference are directed toward a similar or analogous device (method, or product). The prior art Hinghole provide design incentives of payor in a request for payment, selecting accounts for payment based on a scored likelihood that an account balance having sufficient balance on a specified date, whereas the prior art Williams provides design incentives of the payee (merchant) in a request for payment determining whether to accept an account for payment based on scored likelihood of successful payment which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product). Based on the similarity of the same incentive for payment and the same solution of scoring likelihood and selecting/accepting an account for payment of each prior art, makes clear that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art. Therefore, based on the teaching of both Hinghole and Williams one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
In the remarks applicant argues that amended claim 11 include analogous limitations to claim 1 and therefore are allowable over the prior art references. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
In the remarks applicant argues that dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 based the allowable subject matter of independent claims 1 and 11 according to arguments above. The examiner respectfully disagrees, see response above.
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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-5 and 7-10:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a System, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 1 recites a system operational process (1) receive data (2) identify accounts (3) implement split payment amount accounts (4) assigning portion of transaction to each account (5) generate scale score representing likelihood of settlement (6) output representation of scores (7) receive transaction request (8) initiate payment.. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic system processor performing the recited operations “receive”, “identify accounts”, “implement…payment split”, “assigning proportion of transaction amount to accounts”, “generate scale score of likelihood”, “receive transaction request…” and “initiate payment”. The limitation “output a representation of the scaled score…” is insignificant extra solution activity and thus is not sufficient alone to move the claimed abstract idea out of the mental concepts. The limitation “initiate the payment…” is broadly claimed. The common definition of “initiate” is to start an action. The human mind is capable of a decision to start an action. The claimed physical structures (processors) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the operations “receive data”, “identify accounts”, “assigning proportion of transaction amount to accounts, generate scaled score, receive request and initiate transaction likelihood mimics mental processes of observation, analysis and decision. Although the “generate scaled score” is directed toward mathematical concepts. The court also has “treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. According to the Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63; Parker v., decision, 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. With respect to the limitation “implement a payment split amount the plurality of accounts”, the limitations is so high level that the broadest reasonable interpretation that could be applied is making a decision to implement the payment using multiple accounts to pay the transaction amount. Therefore, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and decision. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
In addition, claim 1 focuses on analyzing transaction data in order to measure settlement risk which is a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which system processors are invoked merely as a tool, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “computer-implemented systems and methods for payment routing,” and discloses, in the Background section, “existing payment systems route payment according to pre-determined setting… potentially leading to suboptimal payment processing, or failed transactions…the predetermined settings of the merchant lead to higher average costs associated with settling payment transactions. Improved routing methods are needed” (Spec ¶ 0004). The Specification describes current system performing routing selections that may represent best option amount technologies available but may sill result in suboptimal payment processing, failed transaction and/or higher cost (Spec ¶ 0025). The specification discloses risk assessment of transaction data in the format of a risk assessment score where the risk assessment may affect calculation of a scaled score or likelihood of settlement (Spec ¶ 0045). When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter in light of the specification which focuses on assessing risk where a score is generate representing the risk, the limitations are directed toward analyzing a sales activity in order to calculate a score representing the risk of likelihood of a settlement. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of fundamental economic practices. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising one or more processors and/or transceivers
The additional element processors and/or transceivers applied to perform the operations “receive a payment transaction message”, “output a representation of the scaled scores” and “receive a transaction request” which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations (receive, output) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “processors and/or transceivers” is applied to perform the operations “identify a plurality of accounts”, “implement a plurality of payment splits”, “generate a scaled score” and “complete the payment transactions”, the operations performed at a high level of generality, which individually are directed toward a transaction process. The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as an ordered combination or as a whole, the combination of limitations, the combination of limitations (1)-(3) are directed toward a payment transaction process for payment splits. The combination of limitations (1)-(3) and (4)-(5) are directed toward generating score for probability of settlement of limitations (1)-(3) and outputting the result which is directed toward risk mitigation of the payment transaction process. The combination of limitations (1)-(5) and (6)-(7) is directed toward completing the transaction of limitations (1)-(6).
The first four steps involve receiving a message containing payment amount data for a transaction and identifying accounts for implementing a split payment from the accounts where payment is split into assign proportions of each of the plurality of accounts which is a process directed toward a transaction process. The combination of Steps 5-6 involves generating a measurement of the likelihood of the settlement of the assigned proportion of the transaction amounts on a specific date which is directed toward measuring risk of a settlement and outputting the result. The combination of limitations 1-6 and 7-8 is directed toward initiating a transaction based on outputted score which is a transaction process. The combination the steps simply call for using a generic system processor to function as one of ordinary skill in the art would expect system processors to function, that is perform a transaction process of identifying accounts to apply for payment of a transaction in response to receiving a payment message and to calculate a value representing probability of settlement.
The non-abstract additional elements recited in the claim include a system for payment routing comprising one or more processors/transceivers programmed that is applied to implement the identified abstract idea. The receive and output functions recited are mere insignificant extra solution activity added to the judicial exception. The judicial exception is merely linked to a particular technical environment where the system claimed and its corresponding components provide a field of use.
The functions are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lack technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system processor at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations “identify accounts”, “implement payment split among a plurality of accounts”, “assigning proportion of transaction amounts to each account”, “receive request”, “output scores”, “initiate transaction” and/or “generate scaled score” as the claimed limitations do not provide any technology to perform the recited functions. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application). The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of identifying accounts for payment settlements and generating a likelihood of settlement score which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to identify accounts to use for a payment and generate a likelihood score of settlements and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Appellant does not adequately explain, how retrieving user data and executing a program to determine whether a user is recommended for a particular product based on the retrieved user data, improve the functionality of computer systems. The analysis find no indication in the claim language that the structure and/or the manner in which a computer system operates is changed in any way. Nor is there any such indication elsewhere in the record. The Specification describes the challenges transaction risk.
Similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the finding of claim 1, when considered as a whole, does not reflect an improvement in computer functionality, an improvement in technology or a technical field, or that the claim otherwise integrates the recited abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that term is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising one or more processors and/or transceivers programmed to perform the operations of “receive message”, “identify plurality of accounts”, “implement payment split amount the plurality of accounts”, “assigning a proportion of transaction amount to each account”, “generate a scaled score”, “output …scores…”, “receive …request” and “initiate …payment transaction…”. Claim 1 does not describe the system processors in any further technical detail that would distinguish them from their generic counterparts. Each is functionally described as either "receive”, “identify”, “implement payment”, “assigning, "generate…score”, “output …score”, “receive…request” or “initiate payment" at such a high level that such functions can be associated with generic system processors capable of performing these operations using any generic programming. The Specification attributes no special technical meaning to any of these operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. Accordingly, these are common processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic processors were capable of performing and would have associated with such generic computer elements and functionality. Cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. The application of one or more processor of a system to perform the “receive”, ”identify”, “implement”, “assigning”, “generate”, “output”, “receive” and “initiate” operations of the claim ----are some of the most basic functions of a system processors. The generic system processors are employed in a customary manner such that they were insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Therefore, it concluded that the claims still “simply recite conventional actions in a generic way” (e.g., receiving a transaction message, identifying accounts, implementing split payment, assigning proportion of transaction amount to accounts, and generating score of likelihood) and “do not purport to improve any underlying technology” and is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by system processors or requiring no more than a generic compute to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of the claimed operations/activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each operation does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
[0028] Turning briefly to Figure 2, generally the computing device 102 may comprise tablet computers, laptop computers, desktop computers, workstation computers, smart phones, smart watches, and the like. Also, or in addition, the computing device 102 may include a plurality of copiers, printers, routers, switches, servers, and any other device that can connect to an internal or
external network, and/or communication network. For example, the computing device 102 may also include a plurality of proxy servers, web servers, communications servers, routers, load balancers, and/or firewall servers, as are commonly known. Each computing device 102 may respectively include a processing element 200 and a memory element 204. Each computing device
102 may also respectively include circuitry capable of wired and/or wireless communication with the card issuer 104, merchant 106, account data storage device 108, databases 110, and/or financial institution 112, including, for example, transceiver element 202. Further, the computing device 102 may include software configured with instructions for performing and/or enabling
performance of at least some of the steps set forth herein. In an embodiment, the software comprises programs stored on computer-readable media of memory elements 204
See para 0027-0031, para 0035-0038
[0164] Certain embodiments are described herein as including logic or a number of routines,
subroutines, applications, or instructions. These may constitute either software (e.g., code
embodied on a machine-readable medium or in a transmission signal) or hardware. In hardware,
the routines, etc., are tangible units capable of performing certain operations and may be
configured or arranged in a certain manner. In example embodiments, one or more computer
systems (e.g., a standalone, client or server computer system) or one or more hardware modules
of a computer system (e.g., a processor or a group of processors) may be configured by software
(e.g., an application or application portion) as computer hardware that operates to perform certain
operations as described herein.
[0165] In various embodiments, computer hardware, such as a processing element, may be
implemented as special purpose or as general purpose. For example, the processing element may
comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured, such as an application specific
integrated circuit (ASIC), or indefinitely configured, such as an FPGA, to perform certain
operations. The processing element may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as
encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is
temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the
decision to implement the processing element as special purpose, in dedicated and permanently
configured circuitry, or as general purpose (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost
and time considerations.
[0166] Accordingly, the term "processing element" or equivalents should be understood to
encompass a tangible entity, be that an entity that is physically constructed, permanently
configured (e.g., hardwired), or temporarily configured (e.g., programmed) to operate in a certain
manner or to perform certain operations described herein. Considering embodiments in which the
processing element is temporarily configured (e.g., programmed), each of the processing elements
need not be configured or instantiated at any one instance in time. For example, where the
processing element comprises a general-purpose processor configured using software, the generalpurpose
processor may be configured as respective different processing elements at different times.
Software may accordingly configure the processing element to constitute a particular hardware
configuration at one instance of time and to constitute a different hardware configuration at a
different instance of time.
[0167] Computer hardware components, such as transceiver elements, memory elements,
processing elements, and the like, may provide information to, and receive information from, other
computer hardware components. Accordingly, the described computer hardware components may
be regarded as being communicatively coupled. Where multiple of such computer hardware
components exist contemporaneously, communications may be achieved through signal
transmission (e.g., over appropriate circuits and buses) that connect the computer hardware
components. In embodiments in which multiple computer hardware components are configured
or instantiated at different times, communications between such computer hardware components
may be achieved, for example, through the storage and retrieval of information in memory
structures to which the multiple computer hardware components have access. For example, one
computer hardware component may perform an operation and store the output of that operation in
a memory device to which it is communicatively coupled. A further computer hardware
component may then, at a later time, access the memory device to retrieve and process the stored
output. Computer hardware components may also initiate communications with input or output
devices, and may operate on a resource (e.g., a collection of information).
The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-5 and 7-10 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward the transaction information applied in the generation of the likelihood of settlement score- a business practice of risk assessment and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward generating an alternative score representing likelihood of settlement using accounts on a different date. a business practice of risk assessment and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward generating a combined and alternate combined likelihood of settlement score according to different dates- a business practice of risk assessment and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward initiate payment according to selected dates and alternate data based on comparison of scores- a business practice of performing a transaction based risk assessment. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward categorizing different accounts- a business practice. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward determining cost for payment transaction and alternate cost based on different dates- a business practice. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward outputting cost and scores and receiving transaction request -business practice. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward receive input from accountholder identifying account, transaction the and payment split definition- insignificant extra solution activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 11-15 and 17-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The steps of Method claim 11 corresponds to operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The steps of Method claim 11 corresponds to operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a one or more transceivers/processors –is purely functional and generic. to perform the operations of “receive message”, “identify plurality of accounts”, “implement payment split amount the plurality of accounts”, “assigning a proportion of transaction amount to each account” and “generate a scaled score”. Claim 8 does not describe the transceivers/processors in any further technical detail that would distinguish them from their generic counterparts. Each is functionally described as either "receive”, “identify”, “implement payment”, “assigning” or "generate" at such a high level that such functions can be associated with generic processors capable of performing these operations using any generic programming. The Specification attributes no special technical meaning to any of these operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. Accordingly, these are common processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic processors were capable of performing and would have associated with such generic computer elements and functionality. Cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. The application of one or more processor of a system to perform the “receive”, ”identify”, “implement”, “assigning” and “generate” operations of the claim ----are some of the most basic functions of a system processors. The generic system processors are employed in a customary manner such that they were insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Therefore, it concluded that the claims still “simply recite conventional actions in a generic way” (e.g., receiving a transaction message, identifying accounts, implementing split payment, assigning proportion of transaction amount to accounts, and generating score of likelihood) and “do not purport to improve any underlying technology” and is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by system processors or requiring no more than a generic compute to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of the claimed operations/activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each operation does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
[0028] Turning briefly to Figure 2, generally the computing device 102 may comprise tablet computers, laptop computers, desktop computers, workstation computers, smart phones, smart watches, and the like. Also, or in addition, the computing device 102 may include a plurality of copiers, printers, routers, switches, servers, and any other device that can connect to an internal or
external network, and/or communication network. For example, the computing device 102 may also include a plurality of proxy servers, web servers, communications servers, routers, load balancers, and/or firewall servers, as are commonly known. Each computing device 102 may respectively include a processing element 200 and a memory element 204. Each computing device
102 may also respectively include circuitry capable of wired and/or wireless communication with the card issuer 104, merchant 106, account data storage device 108, databases 110, and/or financial institution 112, including, for example, transceiver element 202. Further, the computing device 102 may include software configured with instructions for performing and/or enabling
performance of at least some of the steps set forth herein. In an embodiment, the software comprises programs stored on computer-readable media of memory elements 204
See para 0027-0031, para 0035-0038
[0168] The various operations of example methods described herein may be performed, at least
partially, by one or more processing elements that are temporarily configured (e.g., by software)
or permanently configured to perform the relevant operations. Whether temporarily or
permanently configured, such processing elements may constitute processing element implemented
modules that operate to perform one or more operations or functions. The modules
referred to herein may, in some example embodiments, comprise processing element-implemented
modules.
[0169] Similarly, the methods or routines described herein may be at least partially processing
element-implemented. For example, at least some of the operations of a method may be performed
by one or more processing elements or processing element-implemented hardware modules. The
performance of certain of the operations may be distributed among the one or more processing
elements, not only residing within a single machine, but deployed across a number of machines.
In some example embodiments, the processing elements may be located in a single location (e.g.,
within a home environment, an office environment or as a server farm), while m other
embodiments the processing elements may be distributed across a number of locations.
The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 12-15 and 17-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 11. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward the transaction information applied in the generation of the likelihood of settlement score- a business practice of risk assessment and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward generating an alternative score representing likelihood of settlement using accounts on a different date. a business practice of risk assessment and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward generating a combined and alternate combined likelihood of settlement score according to different dates- a business practice of risk assessment and mathematical concepts. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward initiate payment according to selected dates and alternate data based on comparison of scores- a business practice of performing a transaction based risk assessment. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward categorizing different accounts- a business practice. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward determining cost for payment transaction and alternate cost based on different dates- a business practice. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward outputting cost and scores and receiving transaction request -business practice. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward receive input from accountholder identifying account, transaction the and payment split definition- insignificant extra solution activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 10; Claim(s) 11-14 and 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Patent No. 8,560,447 B1 by Hinghole et al. (Hinghole), and further in view of US Patent No. 11,017,379 B2 by Williams et al. (Williams)
In reference to Claim 1:
Hinghole teaches:
(Currently Amended) A system for payment routing according to a likelihood of settlement, the system comprising one or more processors and/or transceivers individually or collectively programmed ((Hinghole) in at least Abstract; Col 6 lines 65-Col 7 lines 1-42, Col 8 lines 1-12, lines 49-67, Col 18 lines 5-48) to:
receive a payment transaction message relating to a putative payment transaction of an accountholder, the payment transaction message containing putative payment transaction data including a transaction amount corresponding to the putative payment transaction ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 3; Col 4 lines 6-19, Col 9 lines 14-19);
identify a plurality of accounts corresponding to the accountholder based on the payment transaction message ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 3; Col 3 lines 1-18, Col 9 lines 38-50, Col 4 lines 6-56, Col 8 lines 1-12, Col 9 lines 51-62),
implement a plurality of payment splits among the plurality of accounts pursuant to a plurality of corresponding alternative definitions including a first payment split pursuant to a first definition specified by the accountholder in an account setup process, each of the payment splits assigning a proportion of the transaction amount to each of two (2) or more of the plurality of accounts ((Hinghole) in at least Col 1 lines 15-55 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art Col 2 lines 4-15, Col 9 lines 20-Col 10 lines 1-5, Col 13 lines 19-39, Col 19 lines 20-39); and
generate a scaled score representing the likelihood of settlement of the assigned proportion of the transaction amount via each of the two (2) or more accounts corresponding to each of the plurality of payment splits on a date ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 7, FIG. 11-14, FIG. 15; Col 3 lines 19-35, Col 4 lines 57-Col 5 lines 1-8 wherein the prior art teaches determining a weighted score; Col 10 lines 32-67, Col 11 lines 29-56 wherein the prior art teaches generating respective scores of respective balances, Col 13 lines 5-18, Col 14 lines 10-50),
receive a transaction request over an electronic payment network … responsive to the scaled scores, the transaction request requesting a payment transaction adopting one or the plurality of payment splits other than the first payment split ((Hinghole) in at least abstract wherein the prior art teaches accounts are analyzed to determine estimated balances to generate scores presented to the payor and an account is selected based on scores; Col 2 lines 35-49, Col 2 lines 64-Col 3 lines 1-35, Col 5 lines 9-28. Col 14 lines 34-Col 15 lines 1-17 ) and
complete the payment transaction via the electronic payment network responsive to the transaction request.((Hinghole) in at least Fig. 3, FIG. 12, FIG. 15, FIG. 17; Col 17 lines 10-14, Col 17 lines 37-58);
Hinghole does not explicitly teach:
output a representation of the scaled scores to a merchant associated with the putative payment transaction;
receive a transaction request over an electronic payment network from the merchant responsive to the scaled scores, …
Williams teaches:
implement a plurality of payment …[option for payment] among the plurality of accounts pursuant to a plurality of corresponding alternative definitions including a first payment …[account option for payment] pursuant to a first definition specified by the accountholder in an account setup process,…((Williams) in at least Col 4 lines 9-35)
output a representation of the scaled scores to a merchant associated with the putative payment transaction ((Williams) in at least FIG. 5; Col 1 lines 55-62, Col 2 lines 5-10, Col 3 lines 55-67, Col 4 lines 20-55, Col 6 lines 6-51, Col 14 lines 46-59);
receive a transaction request over an electronic payment network from the merchant responsive to the scaled scores, the transaction request requesting a payment transaction adopting one or the plurality of payment …[option] other than the first payment …[option] ((Williams) in at least Col 4 lines 1-9 wherein the prior art teaches merchant uses prepaid risk score to determine if risk is too high, then request an additional form of payment card , Col 14 lines 60-67); and
complete the payment transaction responsive to the transaction request ((Williams) in at least Col 9 lines 64-Col 10 lines 1-16)
The prior art Hinghole teaches receiving a request for payment from the payor to pay bills, whereas the prior art Williams teaches receiving a request for payment from the payee to pay bills where accounts for payment are selected based on scored risk of likelihood of payment. According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. As both Hinghole and Williams are directed toward selecting payments based on scoring of the likelihood of a payment being made, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, these reference are directed toward a similar or analogous device (method, or product). The prior art Hinghole provide design incentives of payor in a request for payment, selecting accounts for payment based on a scored likelihood that an account balance having sufficient balance on a specified date, whereas the prior art Williams provides design incentives of the payee (merchant) in a request for payment determining whether to accept an account for payment based on scored likelihood of successful payment which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product). Based on the similarity of the same incentive for payment and the same solution of scoring likelihood and selecting/accepting an account for payment of each prior art, makes clear that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art. Therefore, based on the teaching of both Hinghole and Williams one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
Both Hinghole and Williams are directed toward analyzing customer data in order to calculate payment risk score. Williams teaches the motivation of transmitting the risk score to the merchant in order to provide the merchant a risk measurement and reasons for the score so the merchant can decide on whether to approve a payment transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify use of the calculated risk score of Hinghole to include providing the score to the merchant as taught by Williams since Williams teaches the motivation of transmitting the risk score to the merchant in order to provide the merchant a risk measurement and reasons for the score so the merchant can decide on whether to approve a payment transaction.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein generation of the scaled score for each of the plurality of accounts under each of the plurality of payment splits includes processing data from at least one of the merchant, a card issuer, one or more financial institutions corresponding to the plurality of accounts, an account data storage device and a database. ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 14; Col 2 lines 38-45, Col 3 lines 19-35, lines 47-62, Col 5 lines 9-20, Col 13 lines 5-17, Col 4 lines 61-Col 5 lines 1-4, Col 12 lines 4-15, lines 20-50, Col 15 lines 20-42
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively
generate an alternative scaled score representing the likelihood of settlement of the assigned proportion of the transaction amount under each of the plurality of payment splits via each of the corresponding two (2) or more plurality of accounts on an alternative date. ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 9A-B; FIG. 10-11; Abstract; Col 3 lines 5-17, lines 40-62, Col 4 lines 33-Col 5 lines 1-8 , Col 11 lines 40-56),
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Original) The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively –
generate a combined scaled score based on all the scaled scores of each of the plurality of payment splits on the date, generate an alternative combined scaled score based on all the alternative scaled scores of each of the plurality of payment splits on the alternative date. ((Hinghole) in at least Col 2 lines 64-Col 3 lines 1-18, Col 4 lines 32-56, Col 4 lines 57-Col 5 lines 1-18, Col 11 lines 15-56, Col 13 lines 5-18, Col 14 lines 26-33, lines 58-Col 15 lines 1-17, Col 19 lines 20-39)
Although the prior art does not explicitly apply the language “alternative…score”, the prior art does teach scoring different each account and then comparing the account where the selecting accounts based on result of higher score (Col 14 lines 26-33, lines 65-Col 15 lines 1-3, lines 14-17) which can be broadly interpreted as alternative score from one account to another.
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively –
determine a cost to execute the putative payment transaction under each of the plurality of payment splits on the date, determine an alternative cost to execute the putative payment transaction under each of the plurality of payment splits on the alternative date. ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 12; Col 12 lines 4-18 wherein the prior art teaches determining interest rate earned on certain accounts, and fees if balance on account fall below minimum balance; Col 12 lines 64-Col 13 lines 1-4 wherein the prior art teaches assigning scores on whether a fee is charged if balance below a minimum value or which accounts have higher or no fees)
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively
receive, before receipt of the payment transaction message, input from the accountholder during the account setup process identifying the plurality of accounts, a transaction type of the putative payment transaction, and the first definition ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 5; Col 1 lines 15-55 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art Col 2 lines 4-15, Col 9 lines 20-Col 10 lines 1-5, Col 13 lines 19-39, Col 14 lines 26-42, col 19 lines 12-39)
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 11.
The steps of method claim 11 correspond to the operations of system claim 1.
Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
Method claim 12 corresponds to system claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The steps of method claim 13 correspond to the operations of system claim 3.
Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3.
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
The steps of method claim 14 correspond to the operations of system claim 4.
Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
The steps of method claim 18 correspond to the operations of system claim 8.
Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8.
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20
The steps of method claim 20 correspond to the operations of system claim 10.
Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 10
Claim(s) 5 and 7 of claim 3 above; Claim(s) 15 and 17 of claim 13 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Patent No. 8,560,447 B1 by Hinghole et al. (Hinghole), in view of US Patent No. 11,017,379 B2 by Williams et al. (Williams), and further in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0402068 A1 by Cracknell et al. (Cracknell)
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
the transaction request being requested by the merchant on a selected one of the date and the alternative date based on comparison of the scaled scores and the alternative scaled scores. ((Hinghole) in at least Fig. 8-11; Fig. 14; col 3 lines 5-18, Col 4 lines 6-32, lines 40-56, Col 5 lines 10-28, Col 11 lines 28-39. lines 45-Col 12 lines 1-3)
Hinghole does not explicitly teach:
the transaction request being requested by the merchant
Cracknell teaches:
the transaction request being requested by the merchant on a selected one of the date … based on comparison of the … scores…((Cracknell) in at least para 0117-0118, para 0120)
Both Hinghole and Cracknell are directed toward analyzing transaction data in order to determine transaction related probability score related to transaction risk. Cracknell teaches the motivation of the merchant requesting transaction on a selected date in order for a transaction to occur on an optimal date for the merchant in order to reduce transaction processing cost due to excessive declines. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify use of the calculated risk score of Hinghole to include the merchant applying the score to request a specific date as taught by Cracknell since Cracknell teaches the motivation of the merchant requesting transaction on a selected date in order for a transaction to occur on an optimal date for the merchant in order to reduce transaction processing cost due to excessive declines.
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Hinghole, Williams and Cracknell discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Original) The system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above),
wherein at least two of the plurality of accounts are categorized within different ones of the following account categories: credit, debit, savings, checking, and health savings account (HSA). ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 4)
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of independent claim 13. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15
The steps of method claim 15 correspond to the operations of system claim 5.
Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 5.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
Method claim 16 corresponds to system claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 of claim 8 above, Claim(s) 19 of claim 18 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,560,447 B1 by Hinghole et al. (Hinghole), in view of US Patent No. 11,017,379 B2 by Williams et al. (Williams)and further in view of US Pub No. 2019/0333053 A1 by Ozvat et al. (Ozvat)
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively –
output … and the alternative scaled scores …with the putative payment transaction, receive a transaction request, after …, and the alternative scaled scores, from the merchant, the transaction request requesting the payment transaction via a selected one of the date and the alternative date. ((Hinghole) in at least FIG. 9A-B; Col 10 lines 60-67, Col 11 lines 15-28),
Hinghole does not explicitly teach:
output the costs, the alternative costs,… to the merchant associated with the putative payment transaction, receive a transaction request being received, after outputting cost, the alternative cost…, from the merchant, …
Ozvat teaches:
output the costs, the alternative costs,… to the merchant associated with the putative payment transaction, receive the transaction request being received, after outputting cost, the alternative cost…, from the merchant, the transaction request requesting the payment transaction ((Ozvat) in at least para 0112 wherein the prior art teaches combining different forms of payment to the merchant in transaction, para 0122 wherein the prior art teaches POS provide selection of tender options supported by the POS, para 0177, para 0243-0244 wherein the prior art teaches payment service review payment services selected for utilization by merchant customer where certain selected services have a corresponding cost differentials provided by the utilized payment services including alternate cost-benefit trade offs available to the merchant para 0246 wherein the prior art teaches decomposing cost index to display fees and corresponding services , para 0247-0256 wherein the prior art teaches synthesizing as if fee history for merchant with selected payment service provider with different cost profile and cost sharing partnerships associated with payment transactions, para 0267).
Both Hinghole and Ozvat are directed toward split payment transactions with different accounts where based on the selection of the payment service different costs are applied to the participants. Ozvat teaches that different account payment sources have transaction fees and services which vary from entity to entity such as inhouse or third party payment services for processing payment and providing a review of payment services utilized by a customer have corresponding cost in order to assist the merchant in determining costs of service set and what alternative cost benefit trade-offs may be available to the merchant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reviewing of accounts process for cost (FIG. 14, Col 12) of payment selection of Hinghole to include the payment services review process for merchants as taught by Ozvat since Ozvat teaches that different account payment sources have corresponding transaction fees and services which vary from entity to entity such as inhouse or third party payment services for processing payment and providing a review of payment services utilized by a customer with a corresponding cost in order to assist the merchant in determining costs of service set and what alternative cost benefit trade-offs may be available to the merchant for payment from multipayment source transactions.
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Hinghole and Williams discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18. Hinghole further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19
The steps of method claim 19 correspond to the operations of system claim 9.
Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2020/0257408 A1 by Duong et al; US Patent No. 9,990,621 B1 by Ng et al; US Pub No. 2017/0004468 A1 by Stroeh et al; US Pub No. 2016/0132867 A1 by Raja; US Pub No. 2015/0073988 A1 by Hosny et al
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695