DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Apr. 7, 2026, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when sending the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
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 Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–10 and 21–30 are pending and examined with Claims 1, 21, and 30 in independent form.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 21, 22, 27, and 30 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Mar. 18, 2024, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Applicant's Amendment to address claim objections has been reviewed and has overcome each and every objection to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 7, 2026 [“Non-Final Office Action"]. The objection to Claims 1, 21, and 30 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Specification describes the alleged technical solution as a particular sequence of operations: (1) a "retry attempt engine" extracts the retry feature data used as input to the ML model (¶ 21); (2) the ML model determines the scenario-based decisions "simultaneously while or during the primary processing of the transactions" (¶ 22); and (3) those decisions are "cached in a short-term memory component" pending a possible failure (¶ 22). The claims, however, do not capture this solution. The claims do not recite that a "retry attempt engine" performs the extraction; do not positively recite that the ML model performs the determination simultaneously during the primary processing of the transaction; and do not recite that the computed decisions are pre-cached in a short-term memory component before a failure such that they are retrievable without additional processing delay. Instead, the claims recite the asserted features as results obtained on generic components. Under MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims must recite the improvement with sufficient specificity to reflect how the improvement is achieved, rather than claiming the desired outcome using generic components.
USPTO Example 40 is distinguishable. The eligible claim in Example 40 recited a specific, unconventional operation (collecting network traffic data only when the monitored network usage exceeded a specified threshold) that solved a network-resource problem in a particular way. The claims under examination contain no comparable "how" and merely recite the desired result of obtaining retry decisions without added delay, but not the particular operations by which that result is achieved.
Ex parte Desjardins is distinguishable for the same reason. The claimed subject matter there recited the specific manner of achieving the asserted improvement, whereas here the amended claims themselves do not recite the technological improvement and instead claim its result on generic components.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1–10 and 21–30 have been considered but are persuasive. Applicant’s Reply at 13–14. The rejection under § 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action is withdrawn.
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 1–10 and 21–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–10 and 21–30 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–10 recite a “transaction processor system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 21–29 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claim 30 recites a “non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination. Normal font is used for limitations that recite the judicial exception. Bold font is used to indicate additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two (practical application) and Step 2B (significantly more). Italics font is used where necessary to identify intended use limitations1 and underline font is used, as needed, in further describing the judicial exception. Each limitation is identified by a letter designator for use as a shorthand notation when analyzing/referencing each limitation. Rep. Claim 1 recites:
[A] 1. A transaction processor system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the transaction processor system to perform operations comprising:
[B] monitoring transaction data for transactions being processed by a transaction processing [software] component associated with the transaction processor system;
[C] extracting retry feature data in real-time while a first transaction of the transactions is being processed and prior to detecting a failure of the first transaction,
[C1] wherein the retry feature data is extracted from the transaction data and processing scenario data for processing the first transaction via the transaction processing component, and
[C2] wherein the retry feature data is associated with a plurality of features used by a machine learning (ML) model that is trained to determine scenario-based decisions on retrying a processing of one or more transactions of the transactions;
[D] determining, using the ML model, the scenario-based decisions for retrying the processing of the first transaction based on the retry feature data for the plurality of features, wherein the scenario-based decisions are determined simultaneously with the first transaction being processed by the transaction processing [software] component;
[E] pre-caching the scenario-based decisions in a memory component prior to detecting the failure of the first transaction, wherein the scenario-based decisions are available from the memory component and usable to determine whether to execute a retry attempt of the first transaction without additional processing delay for determining the scenario-based decisions if the first transaction fails to process;
[F] detecting that the first transaction failed to process by the transaction processing [software] component; and
[G] accessing the scenario-based decisions in real-time from the memory component without the additional processing delay; and
[H] determining whether to execute a retry attempt of the first transaction based on one of the scenario-based decisions corresponding to the first transaction.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “A transaction processor system” in Limitation A that “determin[es] whether to execute a retry attempt of the first transaction based on one of the scenario-based decisions corresponding to the first transaction” in Limitation H, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because “determining whether to execute a retry attempt of the first transaction,” recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Alternatively, “determining whether to execute a retry attempt of the first transaction,” recites a fundamental economic principle/practice under the organizing human activity exception because managing transaction processing failures describe fundamental concepts relating to the economy and ecommerce. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements identified in Rep. Claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A transaction processor system comprising: a non-transitory memory with instructions and one or more hardware processors; a transaction processing component [software]; a machine learning (ML) model that is trained to determine scenario-based decisions on retrying a processing of one or more transactions of the transactions; and a memory component;
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
A claim improves technology only when it recites a specific improvement to the way a computer itself operates, not merely the application of an existing process using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). However, here, the claims recite any alleged technical benefit only as a result. Under MPEP 2106.05(a), an asserted improvement supports eligibility only where the claims recite the improvement with sufficient specificity to reflect how the improvement is achieved, rather than claiming the desired result using generic components. See “Response to Arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument” point heading supra. The amended limitations “in real-time,” “prior to detecting failure,” and “without additional processing delay” recite only the desired outcome of speed and timeliness and do not recite any technical mechanism by which the outcome is achieved. Spec. ¶ 24. Likewise, “pre-caching the scenario-based decisions in a memory component” invokes only the ordinary store and retrieve function of generic memory. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 27. The “pre” characterization reflects the order in which the abstract decision is made and improve the abstract process itself, not the memory component or any computer technology. Spec. ¶ 21.
The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea with a particular machine.
Although the claims recite specific hardware components, these components are recited at a high functional level and perform only their generic functions of receiving, transmitting, storing, and processing data. Spec. ¶¶ 25, 27, 28, 77–80. A machine is “particular” only when it imposes a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope. MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, any general-purpose computer, server and mobile device running a generic application would satisfy the claim’s hardware requirements, which confirms that the hardware components are generic rather than “particular.” MPEP § 2106.05(b). The specification describes each computer component using broad, open-ended language without restricting the claimed hardware to any particular design, configuration, or architecture. Spec. ¶ 25, 27, 28, 77–80. The “memory component” is also described generically as a “short-term memory component” (¶ 22) and as generic RAM/ROM/disk storage (¶ 79) and does not impose a meaningful limit.
The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f); (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, MPEP § 2106.05(h); and/or (3) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional elements, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them with specificity beyond exemplary language and instead describes them as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. The specification’s own broad, exemplary characterization confirms that these components are not described in a manner that would impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The specification failure to describe these components in any detail beyond exemplary language is itself an admission that the components are so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 30 (“payment application 112 may be used to access a website and interfaces (e.g., via a browser application, mobile application, rich Internet application, or resident software application) … payment application 112 may correspond to a general browser application”); ¶ 83 (“software identified herein may be implemented using one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems”); ¶ 11 (“The acquirer card processing system may process card data with any required transaction, user, and/or entity data (e.g., an amount, payee account, transaction timestamp or data, and the like)”; ¶¶ 19, 20, 74 (“The ML algorithm may be selected such as a GBM or Light GBM model, an XG Boost model, a random forest model, or a tree based algorithm model. … the model may be used, with any other trained models”); ¶ 79 (“a computer readable medium, which may refer to any medium”); ¶ 80 (any computer readable medium); ¶¶ 78, 79 (generic “processor” mentioned by name only); ¶ 27 (“Client device 110, transaction processor 120, and card processor gateways 140 may each include one or more processors, memories, and other appropriate components for executing instructions such as program code and/or data stored on one or more computer readable mediums to implement the various applications, data, and steps described herein.”); ¶ 25 (“system 100 may comprise or implement a plurality of devices, servers, and/or software components that operate to perform various methodologies in accordance with the described embodiments. Exemplary devices and servers may include device, stand-alone, and enterprise-class servers, operating an OS such as a MICROSOFT® OS, a UNIX® OS, a LINUX® OS, or another suitable device and/or server-based OS.”); ¶ 28 (“client device 110 may be implemented as a personal computer (PC), a smart phone, laptop/tablet computer, wristwatch with appropriate computer hardware resources, eyeglasses with appropriate computer hardware (e.g., GOOGLE GLASS®), other type of wearable computing device, implantable communication devices, and/or other types of computing devices capable of transmitting and/or receiving data.”); ¶ 35 (“network interface component 118 may include a DSL (e.g., Digital Subscriber Line) modem, a PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) modem, an Ethernet device, a broadband device, a satellite device and/or various other types of wired and/or wireless network communication devices including WiFi, microwave, radio frequency, infrared, Bluetooth, and near field communication devices.”); ¶ 34 (any known and generic (exemplary) database/storage); ¶¶ 77–80, Fig. 5 (any known and generic (exemplary) computer system architecture. The generic processor, here, performs calculations (functions) and executes instructions that are programmed by software directed to the abstract idea. Spec. ¶ 27. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow, and whose directions are directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding the machine learning (ML) model that is trained to determine scenario-based decisions on retrying a processing of one or more transactions of the transactions, Applicant’s Specification explains it can be created in any known way using any known, AI, machine learning, or neural network technique, such that it could be almost anything. Spec. ¶ 19, 20, 74 (cited supra). The trained model itself is created outside the scope of the claims and as claimed, receives inputs and provides an output, in this case scenario-based decisions (i.e., scores), like any model. Therefore, the ML Model is merely used and a solution at the level of a “generic black box” for determining scenario-based decisions and reads neatly on “use a computer” to do it in any way. MPEP § 2106.05(f); see also, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (holding “that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”). Here, as in Recentive, the specification discloses only the application of conventional ML algorithms to transaction-retry data environment and discloses no improvement to the ML model itself. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 74.
Limitation A describes the “memory” “coupled” in some way with the “processor.” Limitation A further describes the “processor” executing “instructions” stored in the “memory” to perform the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and memory, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–H describe the processor, memory, and instructions, performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception using a computer, merely adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception without imposing any meaningful technical limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Alternatively, the claim generically recites an effect of the abstract idea (e.g., performing the decisioning in ‘”Rel-time,” “prior to detecting a failure,” and “without additional processing delay”) without specifying how the computer achieves that effect in any technically meaningful way. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent Claims 21 and 30 are not substantially different than Rep. Claim 1, recite the same abstract idea as Rep. Claim 1, and contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed for Rep. Claim 1. Therefore, Independent Claims 21 and 30 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as a whole, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05 . The additional elements (i.e., A transaction processor system comprising: a non-transitory memory with instructions and one or more hardware processors; a transaction processing component [software]; a machine learning (ML) model that is trained to determine scenario-based decisions on retrying a processing of one or more transactions of the transactions; and a memory component), are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure2. Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components operate in no particular order and are implemented using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. Spec. ¶ 83 (steps may be changed, combined, separated); ¶¶ 11, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 38, 39, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, Fig. 5 (describing each component using exemplary language as generic or known computing equipment and networks).
(1) A transaction processor system comprising: a non-transitory memory with instructions and one or more hardware processors is WRC in the financial technology field. Spec. ¶¶ 27, 79, 80.
(2) A transaction processing component [software] is WRC. Spec. ¶¶ 25, 38, 39.
(3) The machine learning (ML) model trained to determine scenario-based decisions on retrying a processing of one or more transactions of the transactions is WRC and merely operates on the generic components. See, NPL Leskovec, Section 13.2.9 “Classification Loss,” at 537–39, Section 12.1.2, pp. 464–65 (cited herein on PTO-892); see also Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (holding “that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”). Like Recentive, here, the specification discloses only the application of conventional ML algorithms to a transaction retry data environment and discloses no improvement to the ML model itself. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 74.
(4) A memory component IS WRC. Spec. ¶ 22, 79.
(5) The “pre-caching … in a memory component” and “accessing … in real time from the memory component without additional processing delay” steps recite generic memory performing its conventional store and retrieve function are WRC. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 79. Caching a computer value in memory for later, faster retrieval is a WRC computer function.
The Specification further confirms that the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing data are normal, well-understood operations of generic computer systems, and the steps may be performed in any order or concurrently. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 27, 35, 78, 83.
The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited:
The combination of the additional elements is likewise WRC. A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(2). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification. There is no indication that the combination of these elements operates in an unconventional manner or produces a result that is other than what would be expected from the generic application of these individual components. The amended ordered combination (i.e., extract features in real-time, determine decisions simultaneously with processing, pre-cache them before any failure, then access them without additional delay if a failure occurs) merely performs the abstract decisioning earlier and stores the result in conventional memory for retrieval. Performing the abstract decision in advance and caching the result does not transform generic components into an inventive concept. The model computes a value, memory stores it, and a processor reads it back, each in its ordinary capacity. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 27, 79.
Unlike BASCOM, where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location (an ISP server) rather than on individual end-user devices, Rep. Claim 1 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way. The claims recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular arrangement or order that constitutes the alleged improvement. At the high level of generality recited, the combination is WRC. Any BASCOM argument fails because nothing in Applicant’s Specification describes a non-conventional ordered arrangement of components that is then recited in the claims. A non-conventional arrangement that is described but not claimed cannot supply the inventive concept at Step 2B. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, the claim is not directed to an improvement to the computer or another technology. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f). No inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Reevaluated under Step 2B, the extracting, pre-caching/and storing limitations, Limitations C and E are found to be no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity in the field of electronic transaction processing and do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, Limitations C merely recites obtaining (extracting) input feature data for the ML model and the Limitation E merely recites caching or storing the resulting scenario-based decisions in memory. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 22. Applicant’s Specification describes these operations as occurring within a conventional electronic account-management and transaction-processing environment implemented using standard client devices, servers, cloud services, and databases, and does not indicate that these functions are performed in an unconventional manner. Spec. ¶¶ 25, 27, 34, 35. The Specification’s alleged benefits are recited only as a desired result and flow from the abstract idea itself (precomputing retry decisions) and are not captured in the claims as a specific technical implementation of the generic additional elements. The amended “in real-time” and “without additional processing delay” recitations do not change this result because they claim the result of speed rather than any technical means of achieving it. An improvement recited only as a result, achieved on generic computer components, does not supply an inventive concept. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f). Additionally, neither the specification nor record identifies the extracting and pe-caching/storing limitations as providing any improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, storage technology, or to machine learning model beyond results-level level benefits; nor has Applicant provided any evidence that such operations were not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field at the time of the invention. Spec. ¶ 24. In view of this disclosure and the absence of contrary evidence, and consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(d) and USPTO guidance interpreting Berkheimer, these limitations are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional post-solution activity in the field of electronic transaction processing and do not supply an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra.
Independent Claim 30 is a computer-readable medium claim whose instructions cause a system to perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 21 is a method claim reciting steps that perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 21 and 30 add no additional elements beyond those of Rep. Claim 1 that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Independent Claims 21 and 30 also do not recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination with the elements of the independent claims. Each dependent claim incorporates all the limitations of its parent Independent Claim and therefore recites the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B, for the following reasons:
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 10, 22, and 23 merely refine what data the abstract decision considers, and the types of failure/strategy categories analyzed and do not describe any additional technological element. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular input or a particular field of use does not integrate it into a practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(h). The recited elements are described in the Specification only as data inputs selected for the model, in conventional ML fashion. Spec. ¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 43, 65. Under Step 2B, selecting and analyzing data fields is the abstract idea itself, and training the model and associating decisions with decline codes/strategies are described as conventional ML practice on generic systems. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 42, 61, 62.
Dependent Claims 4, 6, 24, and 26 apply business rules, thresholds, and cost/value comparisons to a predicted score and are part of the abstract idea itself (a mental process and a mathematical comparison). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). The "in real-time … without causing a delay" language of Dependent Claims 6 and 26 recite a desired result of the generic processing rather than a specific technical means of achieving it. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 24 (describing faster, more real-time retry decisions as an asserted benefit, not as a recited technical mechanism). Under Step 2B, comparing a score to a threshold and applying merchant/cost rules are conventional functions described in the Specification as ordinary inputs to the decision, not as an inventive arrangement. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 20, 22, 41.
Regarding Dependent Claims 5, 7 and 25, 27, executing the retry is insignificant extra-solution/post-solution, the action taken after, and merely in consequence of, the abstract decision, and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(g). Selecting among strategies merely extends the abstract analysis. Re-evaluated under Step 2B, these limitations are WRC. The Specification describes executing retries using known strategies on generic processors, and describes ranking/selecting strategies by score as ordinary practice. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 47, 53, 59, 63. The execution and selection steps are conventional post-solution activity that do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more.
Regarding Dependent Claims 8 and 28, detecting a processing failure and receiving a decline/error indication is data-gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity that merely supplies an input to the abstract decision. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(g). The Specification describes such failures (e.g., network issues) and the return of error/decline codes as ordinary occurrences in conventional transaction processing. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 12, 40, 75. Under Step 2B, receiving a decline from a generic card processor is a WRC function.
Dependent Claims 9 and 29 merely names the category of generic model selected for a particular retry strategy but recites no improvement to the model or to computer technology. Naming a generic ML model applied to a particular data environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(a); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (application of generic machine learning to a new data environment, without disclosing improvements to the model, is patent ineligible). The Specification discloses only off-the-shelf algorithms and identifies these "models" by the retry strategy they serve, not by any technical advance. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 62, 74. Under Step 2B, the recited model types are WRC.
Combined Consideration. Considered in any combination, the additional elements of dependent claims either (i) further define the abstract idea or its input data (Claims 2, 3, 10, 22, 23), (ii) apply rules, thresholds, or cost/value comparisons to the abstract output (Claims 4, 6, 24, 26), (iii) recite insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activity such as failure detection and retry execution/selection (Claims 5, 7, 8, 25, 27, 28), or (iv) recite generic ML models applied to the transaction-retry environment (Claims 9, 29). None recites a specific technical means that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology under MPEP § 2106.05(a), and none adds an element that is more than WRC. The dependent claims therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. None of Dependent Claims 2–10 and 22–29 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and none amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Conclusion
Claims 1–10 and 21–30 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest “pre-caching the scenario-based decisions in a memory component prior to detecting the failure of the first transaction” and “accessing the scenario-based decisions in real-time from the memory component without the additional processing delay” combined with determining those decisions “simultaneously with the first transaction being processed by the transaction processing component” as recited by Independent Claims.
Jain et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0012458) determines a retry decision only after failure detection (¶¶ 12, 57, Fig. 4, steps 408–418). Jamkhedkar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0410503) determines a pre-approval prediction to avoid verification latency, not a retry decision responsive to a transaction failure, and does not store the prediction for later retrieval upon failure (¶¶ 3, 27, 28, 72). Song (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0151726) pre-caches historical transaction data that is recomputed into a risk score upon receipt of an authorization request, not a previously determined decision that is available without additional processing. (¶¶ 20, 22, 28). Accordingly, no reference teaches pre-computing and string a retry decision in memory before a transaction failure such that the decision is later retrieved without additional processing delay. The proposed combination of Jain, Jamkhedkar, and Song require impermissible hindsight.
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 JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
Prosecution Insights