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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 10/08/2025.
Claims 1, 12 and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/202 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the 101 rejections. Specifically, applicant argues that the claim teaches a technological improvement that allows "the system is designed to "optimize computer performance and reduce costs." By eliminating disk I/0 and operating exclusively on cached data, the claimed invention improves throughput and latency, reduces computational and storage overhead, and enhances the overall operation of the electronic online system." (response at 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the amended claims recite "wherein calculating the set of redirection bill comprising generating tokens for the payee names and biller names using multiple specialized tokenization rule sets, wherein the tokenization rule sets include", "a number-based rule set that eliminates letters and other characters from the payee names and biller names, and inserts separators between numeric sequences of the payee names and biller names,", "a letter-based rule set that eliminates numbers from the payee names and biller names, and standardizes both of the payee remittance address and biller remittance addresses", "wherein determining the set of electronic payment processors comprises executing a multi-criteria optimization process that operates on an in-memory routing table stored in a cache database, the in-memory routing table being updated in real time without disk I/O, that" "analyzes aggregate payment processing history over a time period", "evaluates contract obligations including monthly or annual minimal volume requirements of multiple payment processors", and "determines optimal payment routing based on both fixed processing rates and historical processing volumes". However these claim elements appear to ab abstract with the exception of "wherein determining the set of electronic payment processors comprises executing a multi-criteria optimization process that operates on an in-memory routing table stored in a cache database, the in-memory routing table being updated in real time without disk I/O, that" which is additional however the elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception as "executing a multi-criteria optimization process that operates on an in-memory routing table stored in a cache database, the in-memory routing table being updated in real time without disk I/O," only recites the idea of a solution and does not recite how the solution to the problem is accomplished. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) For at least the reasons stated above applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 12 and 18 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of “payment scheduling and routing” which is a grouped under “fundamental economic practice” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 12 recites “accessing a set of scheduled payments, the set of scheduled payments to be made using a non-electronic payment mode”, “determining a set of payees from the set of scheduled payments, each of the payees having an account number, a payee name, and a payee remittance address”, “accessing a set of billers, each of the billers having an account mask, a biller name, and a biller remittance address”, “calculating a set of redirection billers based on a match of payees from the set of payees with billers from the set of billers, wherein billers in the set of redirection billers support …, and wherein the match is determined with a correspondence between the account number and the account mask and at least one of: a match between the payee name and the biller name, or the payee remittance address and the biller remittance address, of respective payees and billers”, “wherein calculating the set of redirection billers comprises: generating tokens for the payee names and biller names using multiple specialized tokenization rule sets, wherein the tokenization rule sets include”, “a number-based rule set that eliminates letters and other characters from the payee names and biller names, and inserts separators between numeric sequences of the payee names and biller names”, “a letter-based rule set that eliminates numbers from the payee names and biller names, and standardizes the of the payee remittance address and biller remittance addresses”, “wherein determining the set of … payment processors comprises”, “executing a multi-criteria optimization process that: analyzing aggregate payment processing history over a time period to obtain fixed processing rates, evaluating contract obligations including monthly or annual minimal volume requirements of multiple payment processors to obtain historical processing volumes, and determines optimal payment routing based on both fixed processing rates and historical processing volumes….” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 12 such as “an electronic online system”, “… electronic payment modes…”, “determining a set of electronic payment processors corresponding to the set of redirection billers, wherein each electronic payment processor in the set of electronic payment processors is determined based at least on the biller name and the biller remittance address of the corresponding biller of the set of billers …comprises executing a multi-criteria optimization process that operated on an in-memory routing table stores in a cache database, the in-memory routing table being updated in real time without disk I/O…”, and “scheduling electronic payments for the set of redirection billers using the set of electronic payment processors”, “…electronic…”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Furthermore, “accessing a set of scheduled payments, the set of scheduled payments to be made using a non-electronic payment mode” lacks detail on how “accessing a set of scheduled payments…” is accomplished, therefore it amounts to no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Additionally “scheduling electronic payments for the set of redirection billers using the set of electronic payment processors”” is silent how “scheduling electronic payments…” is performed and therefore amounts to no more than “apply it” see MPEP 2106.05(f))(1)). Furthermore “ … thereby reducing computational, network, and storage used for payment processing” lacks detail on how it is accomplished see MPEP 2106.05(f))(1)). Therefore, it does not provide a practical application.
And, as the additional element does no more than provide a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 also recite the abstract idea of “payment scheduling and routing” which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 recites “access a set of scheduled payments, the set of scheduled payments to be made using a non-electronic payment mode”, “determine a set of payees from the set of scheduled payments, each of the payees having an account number, a payee name, and a payee remittance address”, “access a set of billers, each of the billers having an account mask, a biller name, and a biller remittance address”, “calculate a set of redirection billers based on a match of payees from the set of payees with billers from the set of billers, wherein billers in the set of redirection billers support …, and wherein the match is determined with a correspondence between the account number and the account mask and at least one of: a match between the payee name and the biller name, or the payee remittance address and the biller remittance address, of respective payees and billers.” “wherein calculating the set of redirection billers comprises: generating tokens for the payee names and biller names using multiple specialized tokenization rule sets, wherein the tokenization rule sets include”, “a number-based rule set that eliminates letters and other characters from the payee names and biller names, and inserts separators between numeric sequences of the payee names and biller names”, “a letter-based rule set that eliminates numbers from the payee names and biller names, and standardizes the of the payee remittance address and biller remittance addresses”, “wherein determining the set of … payment processors comprises”, “wherein determining the set of … payment processors comprises”, “executing a multi-criteria optimization process that: analyzing aggregate payment processing history over a time period to obtain fixed processing rates, evaluating contract obligations including monthly or annual minimal volume requirements of multiple payment processors to obtain historical processing volumes, and determines optimal payment routing based on both fixed processing rates and historical processing volumes….” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 1 such as “a processor subsystem:”, “a memory including instructions, which when executed by the processor subsystem, cause the processor subsystem to”, “… electronic payment modes…”, “determining a set of electronic payment processors corresponding to the set of redirection billers, wherein each electronic payment processor in the set of electronic payment processors is determined based at least on the biller name and the biller remittance address of the corresponding biller of the set of billers …comprises executing a multi-criteria optimization process that operated on an in-memory routing table stores in a cache database, the in-memory routing table being updated in real time without disk I/O…”, and “schedule electronic payments for the set of redirection billers using the set of electronic payment processors”, “…electronic…”, “ … thereby reducing computational, network, and storage used for payment processing” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Furthermore, “access a set of scheduled payments, the set of scheduled payments to be made using a non-electronic payment mode” lacks detail on how “access a set of scheduled payments…” is accomplished, therefore it amounts to no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Additionally “schedule electronic payments for the set of redirection billers using the set of electronic payment processors” is silent how “schedule electronic payments…” is performed and therefore amounts to no more than “apply it” see MPEP 2106.05(f))(1)). Furthermore “ … thereby reducing computational, network, and storage used for payment processing” lacks detail on how it is accomplished see MPEP 2106.05(f))(1)).Therefore, it does not provide a practical application.
And, as the additional element does no more than provide a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 18 also recite the abstract idea of “payment scheduling and routing” which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), claim 18 additional elements of claim 1 above and further recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a machine in an electronic online system, cause the machine to…” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, it does not provide a practical application.
And, as the additional element does no more than provide a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, it does computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 13, and 19 recites “wherein the payee name is tokenized to a payee name token, and wherein the biller name is tokenized to a biller name token, and wherein the match between the payee name and the biller name is a match between the payee name token and the biller name token” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. (fundamental economic practice) produces a claim that is no less abstract (MPEP 2106.04 II. 2).
Claim 3, 14, and 20 recite “wherein the payee name and the biller name are tokenized by a tokenization rule” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. (fundamental economic practice) produces a claim that is no less abstract (MPEP 2106.04 II. 2).
Claim 4 recites “wherein the tokenization rule includes converting letters into capital letters and eliminating spaces and special characters” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the tokenization rule includes converting variant corporate labels to a standard corporate label” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites “wherein the tokenization rule includes converting variant address labels to a standard address label” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how the converting variant address labels to a standard address label. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the tokenization rule includes removing variant address labels” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the tokenization rule includes removing letters, spaces, and special characters, and inserting an asterisk to separate remaining numbers.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 15 recite “wherein the set of electronic payment processors include a plurality of distinct payment processors.” However, this does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “wherein there are a plurality of redirection billers in the set of redirection billers”. However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional elements of “further comprising displaying on an electronic display device, a total count of a number of payments corresponding to each of the plurality of redirection billers” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 11 and 17 recite “wherein the plurality of redirection billers are ordered in descending order of total count of the number of payments.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Milam et al. (US 2013/0311362 A1) Teaches: Method for verifying payee information in electronic payments.
Hecht et al. (US 11,068,866 B1) Teaches: Real time interbank transactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached at (571) 272-6709. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692