DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. The Amendment filed 7/7/25 has been entered. Claims 19-20 remain withdrawn from present consideration. Pending amended claims 1-18 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. 35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
In sum, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 10-18) and a machine (claims 1-9). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the abstract idea of:
receiving, … , an invoice for goods or services received by a buyer from a supplier, the invoice to be paid by the buyer;
… predict whether the invoice will be approved or not approved by learning from: at least a first set of invoices from among the plurality of invoices … that were approved and at least a second set of invoices from among the plurality of invoices … that were declined;
receiving, … , a classification indicating whether or not the invoice will be approved;
determining, … , whether the buyer has explicitly held or rejected the invoice within a predefined time period;
responsive to determining that the buyer has not explicitly held or rejected the invoice within the predefined time period: automatically predicting, … , without an input from the buyer, that the buyer will approve the invoice without dispute;
approval for payment by the buyer based on the classification from the invoice classifier; (this limitation is not in claim 1)
transforming, … , the invoice into an ISO 8583 authorization message configured as a switch-to-acquirer (S2A) transaction, the message comprising a virtual card number for the payment and an invoice amount from the invoice; and
automatically initiating, … , an instant payment to the supplier for the invoice … based on the ISO 8583 authorization message.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes sub-categories of fundamental economic practices or principles (e.g., providing a payment for a financial transaction) and/or commercial interactions involving sales activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: facilitating and/or processing a payment transaction for an invoice of a buyer for a sale of goods or services from a supplier, including analyzing various previously approved and declined invoices and predicting whether a received invoice will be approved or not, including receiving an invoice classification regarding approval of the invoice, and determining whether the buyer has held or rejected the invoice with a certain time period, and converting the format of the invoice to be commensurate with a certain type of authorization message format for a certain transaction that includes a virtual card number and amount of the invoice that is initiated for payment of the invoice).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “processor,” a “chargeback processor,” a “payment card network,” an “application programming interface (API),” a “straight-through processing (STP) system,” a “straight-through processing (STP) procedure” associated with the “STP system”, a “virtual card number service,” a “payment gateway,” a “payment network”, an “invoice classifier” trained with various invoice data, and where the various “processors” are programmed to carry out various respective functions. These additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or a communication or a payment network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or a communication or a payment network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 2 and 11 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that invoice and payment amount data is sent as an electronic message that is sent to authorized the payment, which is simply analyzing invoice and payment data to determine whether to authorize a payment, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 3, 6, 12 and 15 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that a payment request and a payment authorization request message/call, or a call/message for a virtual card number, is generated or obtained and used to process a payment, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 4 and 13 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that payment related configuration information is accessed and analyzed to determine how to process a payment request, which is simply data receipt, analysis and payment processing, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 5, 9, 14 and 18 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that a virtual card number is obtained or a chargeback report is created and sent, which is simply data receipt, analysis and report creation used to process a payment or a payment chargeback, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that a buyer approve an invoice payment prediction or reject an invoice for payment, which is simply payment authorization/rejection functionality, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The following relevant prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See, MPEP §707.05) The examiner considers the following reference(s) pertinent for disclosing various, but not all, features or combination of features of the claimed invention:
Lugli et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0270493 A1) discloses a system and various methods for processing various payment transactions for various invoices through a payment network for transactions between various merchants and various buyers, including converting data for a payment message into the ISO 8583 format to further process payment for an invoice.
However, this reference appears to fail to disclose, at a minimum, the claimed limitations of:
executing, by the processor, an invoice classifier trained on a training corpus comprising a plurality of invoices to predict whether the invoice will be approved or not approved by learning from: at least a first set of invoices from among the plurality of invoices in the training corpus that were approved and at least a second set of invoices from among the plurality of invoices in the training corpus that were declined;
receiving, by the processor, based on execution of the invoice classifier, a classification indicating whether or not the invoice will be approved;
determining, by the processor, whether the buyer has explicitly held or rejected the invoice within a predefined time period; and
responsive to determining that the buyer has not explicitly held or rejected the invoice within the predefined time period: automatically predicting, by the processor, without an input from the buyer, that the buyer will approve the invoice without dispute; approval for payment by the buyer based on the classification from the invoice classifier.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed 7/7/25 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments to the independent claims, the previous double-patenting rejection is withdrawn since the grounds for the rejection no longer exists.
Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 10-11) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis, the claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated above in the 101 rejection in view of the amended claims.
Since applicant makes no specific argument regarding any alleged error by the Office in its prior determination that the claims recite an abstract idea, no response is necessary by the Office under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong 2 (Amendment, Pg. 10), alleging that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea recited by the claims, are not persuasive. Unlike USPTO Ex. 47 cited by applicant, the subject matter of the instant claims falls within one or more patent ineligible sub-categories of patent ineligible subject matter, being a fundamental economic practice or principle (e.g., providing a payment for a financial transaction) and/or a commercial interaction involving sales activities or behaviors. Additionally, in Ex. 47 various medical records were received from multiple sources in various non-standardized formats, and were then converted to a standardized format for access by remote users. Here, in the instant claims, there is only a simple conversion of a single invoice into another format, that is, into an ISO 8583 authorization message format. Even so, the conversion of the single invoice of the claims into the ISO format is simply a single step of a multi-step process, as claimed, of processing a payment for a purchase invoice, which is, at a minimum, a patent ineligible commercial interaction as described above in the §101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B (Amendment, Pg. 11), that the claims provide an inventive concept (something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed), are not persuasive. Use of the invoice classifier, as claimed, is simply use of an additional element that is not itself being technologically improved, but rather, is simply being trained with certain approved and declined invoices data to output a classifier associated with payment of an invoice after being trained with the invoices data and input with the invoice for a payment decision using certain rules and conditions for payment. Automation of a manual process with a computing device or algorithm is not in and of itself a technological improvement. Thus, there is no inventive concept (something significantly more) being provided by the instant claims.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR §1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W. King whose telephone number is (571) 270 -5776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 7 AM - 3 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6776.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, or via video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview applicant may call the Examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions about accessing the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOSEPH W. KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696