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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered.
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 49, 51-57, and 59-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Federated directory helps tokenize data (Applicants specification, Para 50). It helps organizations combine corporate address books, enabling users to find other contact information. A federated directory is a type of system that combine data from multiple directories and to streamline user access and data management. (Applicant specification, Para. 57, referencing a federated directory with an “RTP system”).
A “pointer” is an object in many programming languages that stores a memory address. This can be that of another value located in computer memory.
“Tokens” are used in various ways, including as digital proofs of ownership for assets on a blockchain, for computer security and authentication, and as the fundamental data units processed by AI models. They can represent ownership stakes, grant access to goods and services, or simply be a means of payment.
Third party directories are defined in applicants’ specification (Para. 43), as Mastercard RPPS. Mastercard remote payment and presentment service is an electronic bill pay network.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 63 recites a product (apparatus). The claim is directed to a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 57 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 49 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 49, 57, and 63 are examined. The claims recite a method for interfacing directories with pseudo-code account numbers and pseudo-code routing numbers through a federated directory system, comprising: receiving at a federated directory, from a requesting payee, a request for payment from a payor, wherein the request for payment includes a request for payor endpoint data containing information associated with the payor; communicating the request for payor endpoint data to third party directories accessible to the federated directory, wherein the federated directory provides a single interface for accessing multiple third party directories; determining whether any of the third party directories contain the requested payor endpoint data; if the requested payor endpoint data is determined to be included in any third party directory: obtaining by the federated directory the requested payor endpoint data; and storing a pointer in the federated directory system, the pointer indicating where the requested payor endpoint data is stored by a third party directory located in a second system that is remote from the federated directory system, and the pointer being accessible for future reference during payments that include the payor, wherein the pointer references the endpoint data without replicating the endpoint data in the federated directory system; correlating a payor account number from the obtained payor endpoint data to a corresponding payor bank account number pseudo-code (BANPC); correlating a payor routing number from the obtained payor endpoint data to a corresponding payor bank routing number pseudo-code (BRNPC),wherein the BANPC and BRNPC are generated as tokens that mask the actual bank account number and routing number, the BANPC and BRNPC being stored in a proprietary directory of the federated directory system; generating a request for payment message including the payor BANPC and BRNPC, wherein the request for payment message excludes the payor bank account number and payor routing number; and transmitting from the requesting payee the request for payment message to the payor receiving a second message from a network, the message including the payor BANPC and BRNPC; searching the federated directory for the payor endpoint data corresponding to the payor BANPC and BRNPC; replacing the payor BANPC and BRNPC with the payor endpoint data in the second message; and providing the second message with the payor endpoint data to the network for transmission to the payor. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, specifically, sales activities and business relations. The claim limitations are also managing interactions between people, specifically following instructions. Finally, these claim limitations are mental processes, which are capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of federated directory, third party directories, a federated directory system, an interface, single interface, multiple third-party directories, network, plurality of directories, a computer processor, any third party directory, the third party directory, the party directory, pointer, second system, proprietary directory, memory, a computer-readable medium, and tokens. The additional elements of federated directory, third party directories, a federated directory system, an interface, single interface, multiple third party directories, network, plurality of directories, a computer processor, any third party directory, the third party directory, the party directory, pointer, second system, proprietary directory, memory, a computer-readable medium, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of tokens are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (federated directory, third party directories, a federated directory system, an interface, single interface, multiple third-party directories, network, plurality of directories, a computer processor, any third party directory, the third party directory, the party directory, pointer, second system, proprietary directory, memory, a computer-readable medium, and tokens) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 51 recites wherein the request for payment message is validated as to format prior to communicating the request for payor endpoint data is communicated to the third party directories. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 49, and the additional elements of third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 49 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 49, supra.
Claim 52 recites wherein the requested payor endpoint data is obtained from the third party directory determined to contain the requested payor endpoint data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 49, and the additional elements of third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 49 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 49, supra.
Claim 53 recites wherein the obtained endpoint data includes at least one of a bank account number and a bank routing number. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 49, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 49, supra.
Claim 54 recites further comprising transmitting the request for payment to a destination based on the at least the payor bank routing number. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 49, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 49, supra.
Claim 55 recites further comprising: receiving at the federated directory, from the payor, a request for endpoint data containing information associated with a particular payee; communicating a request to the third party directories accessible to the federated directory the payor request for the payee endpoint data; determining whether any of the third party directories contain the requested payee endpoint data; if the requested payee endpoint data is determined to be included in any third party directory, obtaining the payee endpoint data from the federated directory; correlating a payee account number from the obtained payee endpoint data to a corresponding payee bank account number pseudo-code ( BANPC); correlating a payee routing number from the obtained payee endpoint data to a corresponding payee bank routing number pseudo-code (BRNPC); creating a payment transaction message including the payee BANPC and the payee BRNPC; and routing the payment transaction message to effect payment to the payee. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 49, and the additional elements of federated directory and third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 49 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 49, supra.
Claim 56 recites wherein the payment transaction is a request for payment message. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 49, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 49, supra.
Claim 59 recites wherein the requested payor endpoint data is obtained from the third party directory determined to contain the requested payor endpoint data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 57, and the additional elements of third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 57 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 57, supra.
Claim 60 recites wherein the obtained endpoint data includes at least one of a bank account number and a bank routing number. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 57, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 57, supra.
Claim 61 recites further comprising transmitting the request for payment to a destination based on the at least the payor bank routing number. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 57, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 57, supra.
Claim 62 recites receive at the federated directory, from the payor, a request for endpoint data containing information associated with a particular payee; communicate a request to the third party directories accessible to the federated directory the payor request for the payee endpoint data; determine whether any of the third party directories contain the requested payee endpoint data; if the requested payee endpoint data is determined to be included in any third party directory, obtain the payee endpoint data from the federated directory; correlate a payee account number from the obtained payee endpoint data to a corresponding payee bank account number pseudo-code (BANPC); correlate a payee routing number from the obtained payee endpoint data to a corresponding payee bank routing number pseudo-code (BRNPC); create a payment transaction message including the payee BANPC and the payee BRNPC; and route the payment transaction message to effect payment to the payee. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 57, and the additional elements of federated directory and third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 57 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 57, supra.
Claim 64 recites wherein the request for payment is validated as to format prior to communicating the request for payor endpoint data is communicated to the third party directories. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 63, and the additional elements of third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 63 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 63, supra.
Claim 65 recites wherein the requested payor endpoint data is obtained from the third party directory determined to contain the requested payor endpoint data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 63, and the additional elements of third party directory are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 63 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 63, supra.
Claim 66 recites, wherein the obtained endpoint data includes at least one of a bank account number and a bank routing number. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 63, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 63, supra.
Claim 67 recites wherein the method for completing a payment transaction further comprises transmitting the request for payment to a destination based on the at least the payor bank routing number. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 63, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 63, supra.
Claim 68 recites The medium of claim 63, wherein the method for completing a payment transaction further comprises: receiving at the federated directory, from the payor, a request for endpoint data containing information associated with a particular payee; communicating a request to the third party directories accessible to the federated directory the payor request for the payee endpoint data; determining whether any of the third party directories contain the requested payee endpoint data; if the requested payee endpoint data is determined to be included in any third party directory, obtaining the payee endpoint data from the federated directory; correlating a payee account number from the obtained payee endpoint data to a corresponding payee bank account number pseudo-code (BANPC); correlating a payee routing number from the obtained payee endpoint data to a corresponding payee bank routing number pseudo-code (BRNPC); creating a payment transaction message including the payee BANPC and the payee BRNPC; and routing the payment transaction message to effect payment to the payee. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 63, and the additional elements of federated directory and third party directories are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 63 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 63, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are a practical application, and the currently recited claims are controlled by Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the Ex Parte Desjardins decision (as well as the Director Squires’ memo) stressed the specification of application 16/319040, in that the specification was curing a deficiency in the way that normal AI functions, and their specific way of training the AI had an improvement in the AI; the decision had nothing to do with the data itself. The PTAB also recently used the Ex Parte Desjardins decision, to guide its analysis in Ex Parte Kelley (Appeal 2026-000066), where they determined that “modifying [a] linear proxy constraint,” “replacing…the non-linear constraint within a system or equations with [a] modified linear constraint,” and “determining…a solution that satisfies a convergent criterion using the system of equations based on [a] plurality of input setting and the linear proxy constraint replacing the non-linear constraint in the system of equations,” reflected an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates (Ex Parte Kelley, pg. 10). In the currently recited claims, the “invention” is in the data itself, as well as receiving a message, searching a database, and replacing information in the database, and the claims do not involve artificial intelligence or machine learning. The recited claims are simply further defining the abstract idea itself instead of providing a practical application.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are a specific improvement to computer system functionality through a federated directory architecture, are a technical improvement through pointer-based reference system, and are a bidirectional token translation process. Examiner disagrees. The recited claims receive a message, search a database, and replace information in the database, and simply further define the abstract idea itself instead of providing a practical application.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are an inventive concept given an unconventional combination of elements. Bascom relates to translating multiple filters attached to client-side devices to a single filter on the server-side device to filter information request based on requestor’s profile. The steps in the current claim are purely business interaction that can be achieve on a face-to-face level or over the telephone or over generic network environment. This is purely a commercial interaction under the certain methods of organizing human activity.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights