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 December 23, 2025. Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8, 13-14 and 16-17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15 and 18-20 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
Application No. 18472033 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 Incorporated
Inventor(s): Baguley, Nick; Gagon, Serenie; Arunachalam, Natesh Babu; Harnish, Justing A; Bell, Cameron; Roper, Daniel
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that amended limitations recite a system including one or more processors/transceivers programmed for payment routing according to likelihood of settlement. The processors/transceivers to receive a payment message from a merchant, containing transaction data identifying an account of an accountholder, transaction amount corresponding to the transaction, input transaction data into a score algorithm to generate a scaled score representing likelihood of settlement on a date, the score including account balance prediction and transactional behavior component each comprising a gradient boosted decision tree and outputting the value. The scaled score based on a plurality of values, account balance prediction to determine existing account balance and analyze historical data in the account comprising prior withdrawals and deposits of the account holder to project account balance on the date and transaction behavior configured to analyze historical data comprising transactions of a plurality of account holders to determine factors impacting projected account balance on the date. The limitation recite applying contribution rules to the plurality of values in order to generate metadata regarding the scaled score, the metadata comprising significance indicators for the plurality of components with respect to the generation of the scaled score and being based on raw output reflecting weighted contribution of each of the plurality of components to determine the scaled score. The generation of significance indicators including inputting raw output of the plurality of contribution rules to a natural language processing model to generate natural language narrative describing relative importance of values in generating the scaled score. The scaled score is outputted and metadata regarding the scaled score including natural language narrative and in response to the transaction message to the merchant receive a transaction request over a network from the merchant responsive to the scaled score and metadata, the request requesting payment on the data corresponding to the payment transaction and complete the transaction request via payment network. Applicant points to the specification disclosure emphasizing “that system available to merchants …result in suboptimal payment processing, failed transaction and/or higher average cost associated with settling payments….payment processor may use customer ID to determine available balance …payment processor may calculate a likelihood or corresponding score based on the available balance…the likelihood and/or score calculations may read different conclusions depending on the corresponding day and/or payment rail each relates to…the merchant may review the …scores and significance indicators alone or together with information …and select a day…payment rail, account or the like for processing the…transaction”. The “merchant may use the significance indicators as context enabling multi-dimensional decisioning process that goes beyond scaled scores”. The “merchant may incorporate knowledge and/or inferences not considered or properly weighted by the scaled score algorithm in generating the corresponding scaled score(s) - such as, for example, where the merchant is confident that the payer has secure, if only recently-obtained, employment supporting the conclusion that regular significant deposits should be expected - to decide how and if to process the putative transaction. Put differently, the significance indicators may permit the merchant to implement a customized decisioning process which might result in selection of a date, rail, account or the like other than what the scaled scores might suggest on their face.” (spec ¶ 0017, 0038, 0099-0101, 0103). Applicant’s argument is directed toward the advantages and improvements of the abstract idea and not technology. Applicant does not explain how the processes which include “receive a payment message from a merchant, containing transaction data identifying an account of an accountholder, transaction amount corresponding to the transaction, input transaction data into a score algorithm to generate a scaled score representing likelihood of settlement on a date, the score including account balance prediction and transactional behavior component each comprising a gradient boosted decision tree and outputting the value”, improve technology, provide a solution to technology or any other indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. With respect to 2B, applicant’s argument focuses on the transaction process and not the technical implementation. Applicant’s argument describes classic application of technology where data is received, analyzed and the results outputted in the analysis of human behavior related to transaction risk. With respect to the arguments “The scaled score based on a plurality of values, account balance prediction to determine existing account balance and analyze historical data in the account comprising prior withdrawals and deposits of the account holder to project account balance on the date and transaction behavior configured to analyze historical data comprising transactions of a plurality of account holders to determine factors impacting projected account balance on the date. The limitation recite applying contribution rules to the plurality of values in order to generate metadata regarding the scaled score, the metadata comprising significance indicators for the plurality of components with respect to the generation of the scaled score and being based on raw output reflecting weighted contribution of each of the plurality of components to determine the scaled score”, applicant focuses on the analysis of human behavior where a measurement is applied to indicate the risk for transaction payments as it relates to payments applied on specified dates and other risk contributing factors for payment behavior. Applicant does not provide in the argument how technology is integrated for patent eligibility. The rejection is maintained. With respect to the arguments “The generation of significance indicators including inputting raw output of the plurality of contribution rules to a natural language processing model to generate natural language narrative describing relative importance of values in generating the scaled score. The scaled score is outputted and metadata regarding the scaled score including natural language narrative and in response to the transaction message to the merchant receive a transaction request over a network from the merchant responsive to the scaled score and metadata, the request requesting payment on the data corresponding to the payment transaction and complete the transaction request via payment network”, the examiner notes applicant does not explain how the contribution rules or importance values or the generating of the scaled score have any impact on natural language model technology. In applicant’s argument the examiner cannot find any arguments that go beyond how natural language model technology or machine learning technology is applied in the human behavior analysis for payment transactions. Nominal mention of technology for use in performing an abstract idea is not sufficient under step 2A prong 2 and does not provide significantly more under step 2B. With respect to the specification (¶ 0017, 0038, 0099-0101, 0103), the recited emphasized disclosure in the specification is not directed toward improvement to technology, to provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology or provide a technical process to perform a process in a different manner that goes beyond merely applying the technology for use in the abstract idea implementation. The calculation of a likelihood or corresponding score based on the available balance…the likelihood and/or score calculations may read different conclusions depending on the corresponding day and/or payment rail each relates to…the merchant may review the …scores and significance indicators alone or together with information …and select a day…payment rail, account or the like for processing the…transaction”, directed toward transaction risk and not any underlying technology. The “use of significance indicators as context enabling multi-dimensional decisioning process that goes beyond scaled scores” by the merchant and the “ incorporate knowledge and/or inferences considered and properly weighted by the scaled score algorithm in generating the corresponding scaled score(s)” is to address issues related to technology, but rather transaction risk. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that according to USPTO 101 guidance the use of the learning models (including gradient-boosted decision trees and natural language processing models) converting raw output into human readable natural language narratives cannot reasonably be performed by the human mind. The claimed limitations are sufficient to withdraw the step 2A prong 1 rejection of being directed toward mental concepts. The rejection under 2A prong 1 for being directed toward methods of organizing human activity is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to example 37, which applied generic computer functions which as a combination was found unconventional by providing a solution to a problem rooted in technology. Applicant argues the current application provides the merchant with scores and significant indicators based on information the merchant does not have access to enabling the merchant to complete a transaction relying on the scores. The scores and significant indicators allow the merchant to make decision and generate transaction request. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The providing of a merchant scores and significant indicators as information for enabling merchants to make transaction related decisions, unlike BASCOM and example 37, does not provide a solution to a problem rooted in any underlying technology. The rejection is maintained.
The amended limitations recite concrete technical means for the merchant’s receipt and reliance on such information by reciting corresponding trained gradient boosted decision trees and natural language processing models that convert raw output into human readable narratives. Applicant argues that similar to example 34, the claimed system configuration is conventional and non-generic providing a technical based solution for improving payment processing for merchant users integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The amended limitations with respect to machine learning and natural language processing recite inputting data into an algorithm for the intended use to generate a score, the algorithm includes a plurality of components (an account prediction component and general transaction behavior component) comprising trained gradient boosted decision tree. The “gradient boosted decision tree” is nominally mentioned without any technical processes performed by the “gradient boosted decision tree” The algorithm is claimed to output values with the scaled score. The account prediction component is recited for the intended use of determining existing account balance and to analyze historical data in the account prior to withdrawals/deposits for the intended use of projecting account balances on a date. The general transaction behavior component is recited for the intended use of analyzing historical data comprising transactions of a plurality of account holders for the intended use of determining one or more factors impacting a projected account balance on the date. Accordingly, the examiner does not find the recitation of the algorithm components receiving the input each having “trained gradient-boosted decision tree” to be recited as concrete technical means. With respect to the “natural language processing models that convert raw output into human readable narratives”, argued, the limitation recite “generate metadata…the generation of significance indicators including inputting the raw output of …rules to natural language processing model, where the natural language processing model is for the intended use of generating “natural language narrative” describing importance of …values in generating the scaled score”. The natural language processing model is nominally mentioned for receiving inputs and for generating natural language narratives which are not directed toward natural language technology but rather the use of natural language processing models for operating at a high level in its ordinary capacity to generate natural language narratives for use in the analysis of transaction risk. The output of the score, metadata including natural language narrative is merely outputting the result of the generated metadata process without going beyond insignificant extra solution activity. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on the arguments above, claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15 and 18-20 are patent eligible. 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 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15 and 18-20 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 Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 9:
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 "system." 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. The operations of system claim 1 recites (1) receive data (2) input transaction data algorithm (3) determine existing account balance and historical data [intended use] (4) analyze historical data to determine factors impacting account balance [intended use] (5) .generate metadata comprising generated indicators (6) inputting output of rules to NLP model for use in generating score (7) outputting the result (8) receive request (9) complete payment transaction.
The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of analyzing human behavior for risk mitigation. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward receiving transaction data, generating a scaled score by analyzing transaction data and business rules and outputting the results. The specification titled “computer-implemented systems and methods for payment routing” disclose payment systems routing payments according to predetermined settings potentially lead to failed transactions and higher than average costs associated with payment transactions (para 0025). The specification discloses that transaction data may include industry specific risk and that the risk assessment may be transmitted in the format of a risk assessment score. (para 0045). 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 sales activity/behaviors. 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 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 or collectively programmed perform the claimed operations, a scaled score algorithm including a plurality of components, the components comprising an account balance prediction component, general transaction behavior component, each component comprising a trained gradient boosted decision tree, a natural language processing model and an electronic payment network.
The additional element “one or more processors and/or transceivers” to perform the operation “receive…message”, “input [receiving]…transaction data”, “output [transmitting]…score and metadata…”, “receive a transaction request…” are recited at a high level without details of technical implementation. 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)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The claim limitations (receive, input, and output) lacks technical disclosure and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “one or more processors and/or transceivers” to perform the operation “generate metadata…” where the generation of the metadata includes contribution rules to the natural language processing model and “complete …transaction” lack technical disclosure and are not directed toward technology but rather transaction data analysis applied to determine transaction payment likelihood and the completion of the transaction.
The additional element “a scaled score algorithm including a plurality of components, the components comprising an account balance prediction component, general transaction behavior component, each component comprising a trained gradient boosted decision tree” does not positively recite any functions performed, but instead is the software that the “one or more processors and/or transceivers” input data to. The claimed algorithm is recited for the intended use to “generate a scaled score representing the likelihood of settlement of the payment transaction on a date” which is not directed toward processor and/or transceiver technology or model technology. The components of the algorithm (account balance prediction component and general transaction behavior component) are recited for use in outputting a value with the scaled score where the account balance component is for the intended use to determine existing account balance and to analyze historical data in order to project an account balance on a date and the general transaction behavior component is for the intended use to analyze historical transaction data of a plurality of account holders in order to determine factors impacting account balances on a date. The component operations are not positively recited and is not directed toward indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2, but instead amounts to mere instructions with respect to the account balance component to analyze transaction, account and historical data in order to project account balances on a date and with respect to the general transaction behavior component which amounts to no more than mere instructions to analyze historical data for determining factors impacting account balances on a date without any limitations directed toward integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2.
The trained gradient boosted decision tree is nominally mentioned and does not provide any processes or activity within the claimed limitations.
The additional element “a natural language processing model” is recited for the intended use to generate a natural language narrative lacking technical details for an expected outcome.
The additional element “an electronic payment network” is merely applied without technical details for transmission of received transaction request and for the transmission of the payment transaction.
The claimed “one or more processors and/or transceivers”, “scaled score algorithm including a plurality of components, the components comprising an account balance prediction component, general transaction behavior component, each component comprising a trained gradient boosted decision tree”, “a natural language processing model” and “electronic payment network” are merely applied without technical details to perform the abstract idea. 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.
The combination of limitations performed by the “one or more processors and/or transceivers” (1) receive payment transaction message and (2) input data to algorithm including account balance prediction component and general transaction behavior component each comprising trained gradient boosted decision tree for the intended use to generate a scaled score representing likelihood of settlement on a date based on analysis of historical transaction data, account balance data to project, account balance data on dates and determine factors impacting projected balance by the respective components of the algorithm. The combination is not directed toward the processors, transceivers or system or algorithm or its components for improvement or any other indications of patent eligibility, but rather the collection and analysis of transaction data. The combination of limitations performed by the “one or more processors and/or transceivers” applied to perform (1)-(2) which is applied on limitation (3) “generate metadata by applying contribution rules to values, the metadata comprising significance indicators and raw output reflecting weighted contribution of each components for the intended use to determines the scaled score where the plurality of rules or inputted to a natural language model applied for the intended use to generate natural language narrative describing the importance of the values in generating the scaled score. The combination is not directed toward the processors, transceivers or system or algorithm or its components for improvement or any other indications of patent eligibility, but rather the collection and analysis of transaction data. The combination of limitations (1)-(3) performed by the “one or more processors and/or transceivers” combined with limitation (4) outputting the scaled score and metadata including natural language narrative is merely outputting the results of the analysis of limitations (1)-(3). The combination is not directed toward the processors, transceivers or system or algorithm or its components for improvement or any other indications of patent eligibility, but rather the collection and analysis of transaction data and outputting the results. The combination of limitations (1)-(4) as performed by the “one or more processors and/or transceivers” with (5) “receive a transaction request…requesting a payment transaction” and (6) “complete the transaction request” via a network as a combination lacks technical description and merely applying the “one or more processors and/or transceivers” to receive and analyze transaction and account related data, generate a score and metadata and output the results where the merchant in response to receiving the scaled score and metadata provides a transaction request requesting payment that is completed which as a whole is directed toward a transaction process and risk mitigation.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic system processor. 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 or improvement to technology or a process where the technology imposes meaningful limits upon the identified abstract idea, 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 “receiving data”, “inputting data”, “generating a score” and outputting the result, as the claim recited limitations fail to recite any details on technical implementation. The algorithm components and natural language model are nominally mentioned lacking technical disclosure or specific technical processes. 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 is directed toward analyzing account balance data, historical transaction data and applying importance factors in the calculation of a score representing probability of transaction related data that is outputted for use related to the initiation of a transaction and 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 receiving/inputting data into an algorithm that is applied to generate a likelihood of settlement score which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The additional elements recited in the claims which includes a system comprising one or more processors/transceivers are merely applied to perform the operations receive/input data, generate a score and output the results. Claim 1, consist solely on result-oriented functional language omitting any specific requirements on how these steps of generating a score are performed. The claim limitations generalize receiving and inputting data into an algorithm that is applied to analyze the received data and rules in order to generate a score for measuring risk and outputting the value generated using nothing more that high level generic processor and processor operations. With respect to the claimed natural language processing model claimed, the model is merely applied to generate at a high level with results oriented language narrative describing importance as the NLP was designed to be applied in order to interpret data importance values in generating the score and therefore, is merely applying existing technology to analyze language data for use in scaling score.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers processors carry out 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, an 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.
The analysis find no indication in the claim language that the structure and/or the manner in which a computer system or its components basic operations are changed in any way. 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,”
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 or collectively programmed perform the claimed operations, a scaled score algorithm including a plurality of components, the components comprising an account balance prediction component, general transaction behavior component, each component comprising a trained gradient boosted decision tree, a natural language processing model and an electronic payment network.
The claimed one or more processors and/or transceivers programmed to perform the operations of “receive message”, “input transaction data at an algorithm”, “generate meta data and a scaled score” and “output” result, “receive …transaction request” and “complete…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”, “input”, "generate", “output” and “complete” are 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”, “input”, “generate” score and “output” 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, inputting data at an algorithm 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 abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via system processors. .. . 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. According to Electric Power Group, the steps of collecting data, analyzing data and outputting the results when claimed as a high level of generality are abstract concepts. The system processor is described in general terms, functions (receiving, inputting, generating and outputting) for generating a risk score. 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
[0062]… One of ordinary skill will appreciate that algorithms and calculations, and underlying component(s), other than those exemplary ones listed herein may be used to calculate the scaled score(s) within the scope
of the present invention.
[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 general purpose
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 "incidental use" of a system processor does not allow the claim to meet the Alice 2A or 2B requirements.
The specification discloses the natural language process as:
[0097]… For example, a natural language processing model may take the raw metadata output
or indicators from the contribution rules and describing the calculation of the scaled score at issue
as input and may output natural language narratives comprising or describing the significance
indicators and the most important outputs or components of the scaled score algorithm in
calculating each scaled score. In the first instance given as an example above, the significance
indicator may read "The payer has not established a regular pattern of significant deposits to the
proposed account, which significantly lowered this score…
With respect to the nominally mentioned “trained gradient boosted decision tree”, the specification discloses:
[0062] In one or more embodiments calculation of the scaled score(s) may include a weighted
summation or similar equation in which multiple significant variables or factors may contribute.
Also or alternatively, in one or more embodiments, gradient-boosted decision tree(s) may be
trained to calculate the scaled score(s) based on all or some of the variables or factors discussed
herein. In one or more embodiments, an explicit regression gradient boosting algorithm may be
trained on labeled or other data using, for example, a (differentiable) loss function. In one or more
embodiments, a deep neural network may be used as a component of and/or otherwise to generate
one or more values of the scaled score algorithm. In each case, the algorithm receiving historical
transaction data and transaction amount data and outputting one or more scaled scores representing
a likelihood of settlement may be referred to herein as a "scaled score algorithm." One of ordinary
skill will appreciate that algorithms and calculations, and underlying component(s), other than
those exemplary ones listed herein may be used to calculate the scaled score(s) within the scope
of the present invention.
The specification is silent with respect to a technical process for the performance of the gradient boosted decision tree(s) of algorithms.
Electric Power Group- where the courts found receiving data, analyzing data and outputting the results conventional application of technology.
The claimed limitations have not met its burden to demonstrate that claim is "truly drawn to a specific" system, rather than to the underlying abstract idea of generating a score representing transaction risk. 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 2-3, 6 and 9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim(s) 2 and 3 are directed toward generate scaled score, select a selected date for processing payment transactions, initiate payment transactions – is directed toward a sales activity/commercial interaction.. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward generating alternative data and indicators for components, omit from output alternative data- directed toward data analysis and output. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward financial data content-abstract subject matter.
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 2-3, 6 and 9 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 Claim(s) 10-18:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 10 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 10 corresponds to the operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 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 10 corresponds to the operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 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 transceivers/processors and natural language processing model –is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system for implementing a method will include a “processor” capable of performing the basic computer functions -corresponding to claim 1 - 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.
Method claim 10 steps corresponds to system functions claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
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
[0062]… One of ordinary skill will appreciate that algorithms and calculations, and underlying component(s), other than those exemplary ones listed herein may be used to calculate the scaled score(s) within the scope
of the present invention.
[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 general purpose
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 specification discloses “trained gradient boosted decision tree”:
[0062] In one or more embodiments calculation of the scaled score(s) may include a weighted
summation or similar equation in which multiple significant variables or factors may contribute.
Also or alternatively, in one or more embodiments, gradient-boosted decision tree(s) may be
trained to calculate the scaled score(s) based on all or some of the variables or factors discussed
herein. In one or more embodiments, an explicit regression gradient boosting algorithm may be
trained on labeled or other data using, for example, a (differentiable) loss function. In one or more
embodiments, a deep neural network may be used as a component of and/or otherwise to generate
one or more values of the scaled score algorithm. In each case, the algorithm receiving historical
transaction data and transaction amount data and outputting one or more scaled scores representing
a likelihood of settlement may be referred to herein as a "scaled score algorithm." One of ordinary
skill will appreciate that algorithms and calculations, and underlying component(s), other than
those exemplary ones listed herein may be used to calculate the scaled score(s) within the scope
of the present invention.
The specification is silent with respect to a technical process for the performance of the gradient boosted decision tree(s) of algorithms.
Electric Power Group- where the courts found receiving data, analyzing data and outputting the results conventional application of technology.
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 11-12, 15 and 18 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10. Dependent claim(s) 11 and 12 are directed toward generate scaled score, select a selected date for processing payment transactions, initiate payment transactions – is directed toward a sales activity/commercial interaction.. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward directed toward generating alternative data and indicators for components, omit from output alternative data- directed toward data analysis and output. Dependent claim 18 is directed determining non-sufficient funds overdraft policy using historical data analysis -financial analysis for data -abstract subject matter.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10. 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 11-12, 15 and 18 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 19-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer readable storage media, as in independent Claim 19 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The executed instructions of medium claim 19 corresponds to the operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 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 executed instructions of medium claim 19 corresponds to the operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 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 transceivers/processors and natural language processing model –is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer processor/transceiver for implementing a instructions is capable of performing the basic computer functions -corresponding to system claim 1 - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claim 19 offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
Accordingly, the instructions executed of claim 19 corresponds to functions of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
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
[0062]… One of ordinary skill will appreciate that algorithms and calculations, and underlying component(s), other than those exemplary ones listed herein may be used to calculate the scaled score(s) within the scope
of the present invention.
[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 general purpose
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 specification discloses “trained gradient boosted decision tree”:
[0062] In one or more embodiments calculation of the scaled score(s) may include a weighted
summation or similar equation in which multiple significant variables or factors may contribute.
Also or alternatively, in one or more embodiments, gradient-boosted decision tree(s) may be
trained to calculate the scaled score(s) based on all or some of the variables or factors discussed
herein. In one or more embodiments, an explicit regression gradient boosting algorithm may be
trained on labeled or other data using, for example, a (differentiable) loss function. In one or more
embodiments, a deep neural network may be used as a component of and/or otherwise to generate
one or more values of the scaled score algorithm. In each case, the algorithm receiving historical
transaction data and transaction amount data and outputting one or more scaled scores representing
a likelihood of settlement may be referred to herein as a "scaled score algorithm." One of ordinary
skill will appreciate that algorithms and calculations, and underlying component(s), other than
those exemplary ones listed herein may be used to calculate the scaled score(s) within the scope
of the present invention.
The specification is silent with respect to a technical process for the performance of the gradient boosted decision tree(s) of algorithms.
Electric Power Group- where the courts found receiving data, analyzing data and outputting the results conventional application of technology.
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 claim 20, this dependent claim has also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 19. Dependent claim(s) 20 is directed toward generate scaled score, select a selected date for processing payment transactions, initiate payment transactions – is directed toward a sales activity/commercial interaction..
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 19. 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 claim(s) 20 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2017/0169432 A1 by Arvapally et al; US Pub No. 2021/0398120 A1 by Butler 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