CTFR 18/609,256 CTFR 94800 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of the Claims 2. Applicant filed the amendment on 01/13/2026. Claims 2-3, 5, 10-11, and 13 are amended. Claims 17-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 3. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim recites “The method as in claim 7…”, wherein underlined words should be changed to “The method of claim 7…” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 5. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 6. Claims 5 and 13 recite “collecting … the fee rate data including one or more of: published fee rates , offered fee rates , paid interchange fees , exchange rates ”. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected because it is unclear if the list is in the authoritative or in the inclusive. The examiner respectfully requests applicant provide “and” or “or” (e.g., “paid interchange fees, or exchange rates”) to clarify the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted in the alternative. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In the instant case, claims 1 and 9 are directed to a “method and system for real-time fee determination for cross-border transactions”. 10. Claim 1 recites “determining fee for cross-border transactions”. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving … a fee request for a cross-border transaction between a first geographic area and a second geographic area; determining … a fee rate for each of a plurality of alternative currencies for a proposed transaction using a respective alternative currency between the first geographic area and the second geographic area; determining … a proposed interchange fee for the cross-border transaction based on at least the determined fee rate for one or more of the plurality of alternative currencies; and transmitting … the proposed interchange fee in response to the received fee request”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). 11. 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 claim 1 such as “a receiver of a processing server”, “a processor of the processing server”, and “a transmitter of the processing server” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving, by a receiver of a processing server, a fee request for a cross-border transaction between a first geographic area and a second geographic area” and “transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, the proposed interchange fee in response to the received fee request” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). 12. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform determining fee for cross-border transactions and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. 13. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible. 14. Claim 9 also recites “determining fee for cross-border transactions”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). 15. As in the case of claim 1, the 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 claim 9 such as “a processing server”, “a receiver”, “a processor”, and “a transmitter” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 16. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform determining fee for cross-border transactions and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. 17. Hence, claim 9 is not patent eligible. 18. The following dependent claims recent additional elements not addressed above: claims 2 and 10 recite “an electronic payment transaction”; claim 3 recites “a transmitter”; claims 5 and 13 recite “artificial intelligence using a machine learning model”; claims 7 and 15 recite “a cryptographic currency”; claims 8 and 16 recite “real-time”; claims 17 and 18 recite “a database”, “an associated payment network”, and “an associated blockchain network”. When considered individually, and as a whole, each of these additional elements amount to merely "apply it", as they are merely applying the abstract idea to the technical environment of the electronic payment transaction, the transmitter, artificial intelligence using the machine learning model, the cryptographic currency, real-time, the database, the associated payment network, and the associated blockchain network. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claims, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 9 respectively. Conclusion of 35 USC §101 19. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect 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. 20. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 21. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 22. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA 23. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA 24. Claim s 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120078790A1 to Ornce et al. in view of US20210182810A1 to Johnston et al . 25. As per claim 1: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: receiving, by a receiver of a processing server, a fee request … ([0021]) determining, by a processor of the processing server, a fee rate … for a proposed transaction … ([0021], [0032], [0061]) determining, by the processor of the processing server, a proposed interchange fee … based on at least the determined fee rate … ([0022], [0043], [0062]) transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, the proposed interchange fee in response to the received fee request ([0046]) Ornce et al. does not disclose, however, Johnston et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: (receiving) … for a cross-border transaction between a first geographic area and a second geographic area ([0017]) (determining) … for each of a plurality of alternative currencies for a proposed transaction using a respective alternative currency between the first geographic area and the second geographic area ([0022], [0048]) (determining) … for the cross-border transaction based on at least the determined fee rate for one or more of the plurality of alternative currencies ([0022], [0048]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for providing a real-time payment processing between networks that is geographically located within different countries, the sender may be a customer in one country who purchased goods from an online merchant located in another country, and the sender may elect to transmit transaction information along with the transfer amount in accordance to the exchange rate for the transaction as of the date of the transaction, and the transfer amount converted to the foreign currency (‘810, [0017], [0022], [0048]). 26. As per claim 2: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: receiving, by the receiver of the processing server, an acceptance message in response to the transmitted proposed interchange fee (Fig.2, items 104, 108, 110, 260, 262; [0040] initiating, by the processor of the processing server, an electronic payment transaction …, wherein the electronic payment transaction includes the proposed interchange fee (Fig.5, items 104, 108, 570, 572; [0052]) Ornce et al. does not disclose, however, Johnston et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: (initiating) … for the cross-border transaction … ([0041]-[0042]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for providing cross border payments to be transmitted in real-time (or near real-time) through existing domestic payment processing networks without requiring a separate network infrastructure to be developed (‘810, [0041]). Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2. 27. As per claims 6 and 14: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: the fee request further includes a transaction amount ([0061]) Ornce et al. does not disclose, however, Johnston et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: determining the fee rate for each of the plurality of alternative currencies is further based on an equivalent transaction amount for the respective alternative currency based on the transaction amount and an exchange rate with the respective alternative currency ([0022], [0048], [0061]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) that the transaction data may further include details as to the amount to be transferred, the exchange rate for the transaction as of the date of the transaction, and the transfer amount converted to the foreign currency (e.g., foreign currency amount) (‘810, [0048]). 28. As per claim 8: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: wherein the fee rate … is determined in real-time ([0043], [0062]) Ornce et al. does not disclose, however, Johnston et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: (wherein) … for each of the plurality of alternative currencies … ([0022], [0048]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for transferring the funds in accordance to the exchange rate for the transaction as of the date of the transaction, and the transfer amount converted to the foreign currency (‘810, [0017], [0022], [0048]). Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8. 29. As per claim 9: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: a processing server including (Fig.2, item 104) a receiver receiving a fee request … ([0021]) a processor determining (Fig.2, item 104; ([0021]) a fee rate … for a proposed transaction … ([0021], [0032], [0061]) a proposed interchange fee … based on at least the determined fee rate … ([0022], [0043], [0062]) a transmitter transmitting the proposed interchange fee in response to the received fee request ([0046]) Ornce et al. does not disclose, however, Johnston et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: (a receiver) … for a cross-border transaction between a first geographic area and a second geographic area ([0017]) (a fee rate) … for each of a plurality of alternative currencies for a proposed transaction using a respective alternative currency between the first geographic area and the second geographic area ([0022], [0048]) (a proposed) … for the cross-border transaction based on at least the determined fee rate for one or more of the plurality of alternative currencies ([0022], [0048]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for providing a real-time payment processing between networks that is geographically located within different countries, the sender may be a customer in one country who purchased goods from an online merchant located in another country, and the sender may elect to transmit transaction information along with the transfer amount in accordance to the exchange rate for the transaction as of the date of the transaction, and the transfer amount converted to the foreign currency (‘810, [0017], [0022], [0048]) . 07-21-aia AIA 30. Claim s 3-4, 11-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120078790A1 to Ornce et al. in view of US20210182810A1 to Johnston et al. and US8626660B2 to Beck et al . 31. As per claim 3: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: The method of claim 2, wherein the fee request is an authorization request for the cross-border transaction, and the acceptance message is an authorization response, the method further comprising (Col.2, 10-16; col.3, lines 30-34, 40-41) modifying, by the processor of the processing server, the received authorization request to include the proposed interchange fee (Col.5, lines 43-46; col.6, lines 43-47; col.8, lines 22-25) wherein the transmitting the proposed interchange fee includes: transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server. the modified authorization request (Col.5, lines 46-49; col.8, lines 25-26) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) and a method of performing a time-of- transaction currency conversion from the currency in which the merchant sells goods or services to the currency in which the cardholder's credit card is denominated utilizing a rate that is specifically developed by reference to the particular merchant, acquirer, card association and issuer of Beck et al. (‘660, col.3, lines 23-29) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for using authorization request and response messages to convey the conversion related amount, modifying the initial authorization request and adding any fees or markups as appropriate, converting amount before sending, and sending the modified authorization request to the card association (‘660, col.3, lines 30-34; col.6, lines 43-47; col.8, lines 25-26). Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3. 32. As per claim 4: Ornce et al. discloses the following limitations: wherein initiating the electronic payment transaction includes forwarding the authorization response (Fig.2, items 260, 262, 264; [0040]) Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4. 33. As per claim 19: Neither Ornce et al. nor Johnston et al. disclose, however, Beck et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: The method of claim 2, wherein the proposed interchange fee is valid for a period of time, the period of time defining when the electronic payment transaction for the cross-border transaction must be initiated (Col.9, lines 60-67; col.10, lines 4-9) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) and a method of performing a time-of-transaction currency conversion from the currency in which the merchant sells goods or services to the currency in which the cardholder's credit card is denominated utilizing a rate that is specifically developed by reference to the particular merchant, acquirer, card association and issuer of Beck et al. (‘660, col.3, lines 23-29) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for having that the table rates valid over different time intervals, such as a two day period or a period of 5 days with different rates, and the base rate the payment processor offers for longer intervals reflects the additional risk (‘660, col.9, lines 61-64; col.10, lines 7-9). Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 19 . 07-21-aia AIA 34. Claim s 5, 7, 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120078790A1 to Ornce et al. in view of US20210182810A1 to Johnston et al. and US20190340586A1 to Sheng et al . 35. As per claim 5: Neither Ornce et al. nor Johnston et al. disclose, however, Sheng et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: The method of claim 1, wherein the proposed interchange fee is determined by artificial intelligence using a machine learning model, the method further comprising (Fig.1, items 106, 106a-106e; [0023], [0053]) collecting, by the processor of the processing server, fee rate data for each of the plurality of alternative currencies, the fee rate data including one or more of: published fee rates, offered fee rates, paid interchange fees, exchange rates (Fig.1, item 106e; [0040]) training, by the processor of the processing server, the machine learning model using the collected fee rate data (Fig.1, items 106a, 106d, 106e; [0053]) wherein the determining the proposed interchange fee for the cross-border transaction includes: inputting. by the processor of the processing server, the determined fee rate for each of a plurality of alternative currencies into the trained machine learning model (Fig.1, item 106d; [0058], [0063]) receiving, by the processor of the processing server, the proposed interchange fee as output from the trained machine learning mode l (Fig.1, item 106d; [0053]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) and methods and systems for implementing optimized cross-blockchain currency transactions that leverage advanced machine learning techniques – including the determination of an optimized value of various proposed currency exchanges prior to initiation of a trade of Sheng et al. (‘586, [0009]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for collecting market information about the various cryptocurrencies that are being traded, training a machine learning model using specific algorithms captured by the cryptocurrency trading module, inputting to the predicting process the tracked and recorded key indicators, and using the trained machine learning model to generate predictions of future price changes (‘586, [0040], [0053], [0058], [0063]). Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5. 36. As per claim 7: Ornce et al. does not disclose, however, Johnston et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: wherein the cross-border transaction involves two fiat currencies and each of the plurality of alternative currencies … ([0022], [0048]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for providing a real-time payment processing between networks that is geographically located within different countries, the sender may be a customer in one country who purchased goods from an online merchant located in another country, and the sender may elect to transmit transaction information along with the transfer amount in accordance to the exchange rate for the transaction as of the date of the transaction, and the transfer amount converted to the foreign currency (‘810, [0017], [0022], [0048]). Neither Ornce et al. nor Johnston et al. disclose, however, Sheng et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: (wherein) … each of the plurality of alternative currencies is a cryptographic currency ([0038]-[0039]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) and methods and systems for implementing optimized cross-blockchain currency transactions that leverage advanced machine learning techniques – including the determination of an optimized value of various proposed currency exchanges prior to initiation of a trade of Sheng et al. (‘586, [0009]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for including that the techniques are applicable to transactions that convert between cryptocurrencies operating on different blockchains (e.g., BTC→ETH) and to fiat currency exchanges (e.g., USD→GBP) as well, including cross-border currency transactions (‘586, [0038]-[0039]). Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7. 37. As per claim 17: Neither Ornce et al. nor Johnston et al. disclose, however, Sheng et al., as shown, discloses the following limitations: The method as in claim 7, wherein the determining the fee rate for each of the plurality of alternative currencies for the proposed transaction includes: storing, in a database of the processing server, currency data associated with the two fiat currencies and each of the plurality of alternative cryptographic currencies, the currency data including one or more of: a currency name, an associated payment network, an associated blockchain network, an exchange rate, fee data. and transaction histories (Fig.1, items 110, 110a, 110b, 110c; [0031], [0038], [0040], [0048]) executing, by the processor of the processing device, a query on the database to identify the fee rate of the two fiat currencies and the plurality of alternative cryptographic currencies (Fig.1, items 106e, 110; [0042]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cross border payment computing device for transmitting cross border data rich payments in real-time from a payor associated with a first payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a first country to a payee associated with a second payment processing network for processing real-time payments within a second country of Johnston et al. (‘810, [0004]) and methods and systems for implementing optimized cross-blockchain currency transactions that leverage advanced machine learning techniques – including the determination of an optimized value of various proposed currency exchanges prior to initiation of a trade of Sheng et al. (‘586, [0009]) with teaching of Ornce et al. for providing a merchant with an estimated Interchange fee, wherein a determination an estimated Interchange fee in real-time based on the received financial transaction request (‘790, [0008]) for determining two or more of the plurality of cryptocurrency exchanges that achieve the conversion from the amount of the first currency to the amount of the second currency, retrieving pricing and order information from each of the cryptocurrency exchanges, storing frequently traded currencies in currency cache in the database to speed up certain conversions, and obtaining order book information for any number of different cryptocurrencies and exchanges (‘586, [0038], [0040], [0042], [0048]). Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 17 . Response to Arguments Rejection under 35 USC § 101 38. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Independent claim 1 do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. 39. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims as a whole directed to determining fee for cross-border transactions which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions). 40. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because claims 1 and 9 at least “reflects an improvement in functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to the abstract idea. 41. Applicant states that “the claims at issue in the Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins were directed to the training of a machine learning algorithm, the findings nonetheless apply to all computer technology/software related applications” and concludes that in the present claimed invention “claim 1 recites a method for real-time fee determination for cross-border transactions in a plurality of currencies. The result is a technological system that provides for pricing and processing of cross-border transactions in a way that can stay competitive for consumers against alternative currencies while enabling the security, stability, and additional value of traditional payment transaction processing”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, according to MPEP 2106.04 (d) III “In Ex Parte Desjardins … the limitation ‘adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task’ reflected the improvement…”. However, the present claimed invention does not have features similar to In Ex Parte Desjardins. 42. Applicant argues that “In BASCOM, even though individual elements were conventional, eligibility was found at step two because the claimed placement and interaction of components-customized filtering at a remote ISP server associated per user-was not a routine arrangement and yielded concrete network-function benefits.” And Applicant indicates that “there is a need for a technological improvement to existing processes for cross-border payment transactions to provide for competitive interchange fees based on fees for all available currency options to deliver economic benefit to consumers while maintaining a high level of security and value added services to transactions”. Applicant is of the opinion that the present claimed invention “provides for pricing and processing of cross-border transactions in a way that can stay competitive for consumers against alternative currencies while enabling the security, stability, and additional value of traditional payment transaction processing”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bascom's claims were a technical solution to a problem unique to the internet, that Bascom's claimed invention improves the computer system itself, and that Bascom's “inventive concept” overcomes existing problems with prior internet filtering systems. The court concluded that Bascom's claims are not simply directed to the idea of filtering content. However, the present claimed invention does not have inventive concept similar in Bascom. 43. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims recite “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons already discussed above – the additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. As per the identification of the “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the rejection properly identifies the elements which are recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, including a processing server, a receiver, a processor, and a transmitter. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the “additional elements” have been identified and the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Under Step 2B, the additional elements have been evaluated and do not amount to “significantly more”. Note that Revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. The identification of the additional elements in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two is carried over as well as the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f), and (h). The claims are not patent eligible. Rejection under 35 USC § 103 07-37 AIA 44. Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 07-37-02 AIA 45. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art reference Johnston et al. does not disclose limitations determining “fee rate” for a plurality of currencies as recited in the present claim 1 , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). 46. Applicant argues that prior art references do not teach amended claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 limitations. Applicant arguments are no longer applicable because they are moot in light of the new ground of rejection. Conclusion 07-96 AIA 47. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20110101091A1 – Fernandez – Discloses a method, system and computer program product for interchange optimization for payment processing, wherein an interchange optimization method for payment processing can include receiving a transaction profile for a proposed transaction as payment for a purchase by a purchaser from a merchant at a card processing terminal. US20220292496A1 – Yan – Discloses systems and methods for processing global CBDC transactions in a blockchain supported network, where domestic and foreign banking institutions may provide mutual hosting of a consortium blockchain to allow more seamless and direct CBDC supported transactions, and CBDC exchanges in real-time or near-real time. US20100280949A1 – Van Rensburg – Discloses a cross-border financial transaction system in which a local financial institution has a computerised server facility in which multiple system members have each been allocated an account and a foreign financial institution has also been allocated an account. 48. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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. 49. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET. 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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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. /AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 2 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 3 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 4 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 5 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 6 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 7 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 8 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 9 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 10 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 11 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 12 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 13 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 14 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 15 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 16 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 17 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 18 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 19 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 20 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 21 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 22 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 23 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 24 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/609,256 Page 25 Art Unit: 3692
Prosecution Insights