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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
3. The examiner contends that, under the judicial exceptions enumerated in the MPEP § 2106, to determine the patent-eligibility of an application, a two- part analysis has to be conducted.
Part 1: it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
Part 2A: Prong 1: (1) Determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or one of the judicial exceptions. Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. include:
1. Certain method of organizing human activity such as Fundamental Economic Practices, Commercial and Legal Interactions, or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
2. A mental process.
3. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Part 2A: Prong 2: determine if the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Part 2B: determine if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Analysis
4. Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is found that the claim indeed recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process - one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1), using claim 21 as the representative claim, it is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity and mental process. For instance, the claim language “screening and transferring funds in real-time…, wherein the processing…comprises: “receive…an authorization request message formatted according to a predetermined communication protocol; …compare…the payor identifying data extracted from the authorization request message to the entities included within the one or more sanctioned entity lists; determine in real-time…a sanction score associated with the authorization request message…; in response to determining that the sanction score is within a predefined threshold range: electronically cancel the transfer request…; in response to…cancelling the transfer request, block the transfer of the payment amount from the payor account of the payor to the payees; …transmit (1) an authorization denial message… and (II) an advice message to the receiving institution; in response to determining that the sanction score is not within the predefined threshold range, approve the transfer of the payment amount from the payor account of the payor to the payee account of the payee by; …modifying…a structure of the authorization request message by embedding the sanction score into the predefined communication protocol and formatted authorization request; thereby enabling transmission…of a single message including the transfer data and the sanction score; transmitting in real-time….the modified authorization request message including the sanction score…; in response to transmitting the modified authorization request message, receiving in real-time…an authorization response message; in response to the authorization response message indicating that the receiving computing device authorizes the transfer request, …transfer the payment amount from the payor account to the payee account” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Similarly the limitations, “screening and transferring funds in real-time…, wherein the processing…comprises: “receive…an authorization request message formatted according to a predetermined communication protocol; …compare…the payor identifying data extracted from the authorization request message to the entities included within the one or more sanctioned entity lists; determine in real-time…a sanction score associated with the authorization request message…; in repose to determining that the sanction score is within a predefined threshold range: electronically cancel the transfer request…; …transmit (1) an authorization denial message… and (II) an advice message to the receiving institution; in response to determining that the sanction score is not within the predefined threshold range; …modifying…a structure of the authorization request message by embedding the sanction score into the predefined communication protocol and formatted authorization request; thereby enabling transmission…of a single message including the transfer data and the sanction score; transmitting in real-time….the modified authorization request message including the sanction score…; in response to transmitting the modified authorization request message, receiving in real-time…an authorization response message; in response to the authorization response message indicating that the receiving computing device authorizes the transfer request, …transfer the payment amount from the payor account to the payee account; and in response to the authorization response message indicating that the receiving computing device denies the transfer request, cancel the transfer request” are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Any actions that can be performed in the human mind falls into the step of a mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the examiner contends that the claim recites a combination of additional elements including “the processor, computing system, processing network, memory device, computing device, screening module device.” But these additional elements, with their already available basic functions, are simply being applied to the abstract idea and being used as tools in executing the claimed process. Lastly, the limitations “wherein the receiving computing device is registered with the processing network as an issuer of the payee account;…the authorization response message formatted according to the predefined communication protocol used by the processing network and indicating whether the receiving computing device authorizes or denies the transfer of the payment amount based on the sanction score and an existence of the payee account in good standing at the receiving institution; wherein the receiving computing device is registered with the processing network and is associated with the payee account” are recited to further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. Thus, it is determined that claim 21 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 21 are the generically recited “the processor, computing system, processing network, memory device, computing device, screening module device.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. The specification substantiates this, for instance at paras 0050-0062. Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Furthermore, the limitations in the dependent claims are thus subject to the same analysis as in claim 21 and are rejected using the same rationale as in claim 21 above. More specifically, dependent claims 22-23, 24-27, 29-34, 36-40 recite additional elements, but these additional elements comprise the analyses of data, which is nothing but the automation of mental tasks. See Benson, Bancorp and Cyberphone. Also see Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner disagrees. The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity and mental process. For instance, the claim language “screening and transferring funds in real-time…, wherein the processing…comprises: “receive…an authorization request message formatted according to a predetermined communication protocol; …compare…the payor identifying data extracted from the authorization request message to the entities included within the one or more sanctioned entity lists; determine in real-time…a sanction score associated with the authorization request message…; in response to determining that the sanction score is within a predefined threshold range: electronically cancel the transfer request…; in response to…cancelling the transfer request, block the transfer of the payment amount from the payor account of the payor to the payees; …transmit (1) an authorization denial message… and (II) an advice message to the receiving institution; in response to determining that the sanction score is not within the predefined threshold range, approve the transfer of the payment amount from the payor account of the payor to the payee account of the payee by; …modifying…a structure of the authorization request message by embedding the sanction score into the predefined communication protocol and formatted authorization request; thereby enabling transmission…of a single message including the transfer data and the sanction score; transmitting in real-time….the modified authorization request message including the sanction score…; in response to transmitting the modified authorization request message, receiving in real-time…an authorization response message; in response to the authorization response message indicating that the receiving computing device authorizes the transfer request, …transfer the payment amount from the payor account to the payee account” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Similarly the limitations, “screening and transferring funds in real-time…, wherein the processing…comprises: “receive…an authorization request message formatted according to a predetermined communication protocol; …compare…the payor identifying data extracted from the authorization request message to the entities included within the one or more sanctioned entity lists; determine in real-time…a sanction score associated with the authorization request message…; in repose to determining that the sanction score is within a predefined threshold range: electronically cancel the transfer request…; …transmit (1) an authorization denial message… and (II) an advice message to the receiving institution; in response to determining that the sanction score is not within the predefined threshold range; …modifying…a structure of the authorization request message by embedding the sanction score into the predefined communication protocol and formatted authorization request; thereby enabling transmission…of a single message including the transfer data and the sanction score; transmitting in real-time….the modified authorization request message including the sanction score…; in response to transmitting the modified authorization request message, receiving in real-time…an authorization response message; in response to the authorization response message indicating that the receiving computing device authorizes the transfer request, …transfer the payment amount from the payor account to the payee account; and in response to the authorization response message indicating that the receiving computing device denies the transfer request, cancel the transfer request” are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Any actions that can be performed in the human mind falls into the step of a mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner disagrees. The examiner contends that the only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 21 are the generically recited “the processor, computing system, processing network, memory device, computing device, screening module device.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. The specification substantiates this, for instance at paras 0050-0062. Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Further, that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm. 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695