DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a regular utility application without a claim of priority.
Response to Amendment
2.. An RCE with accompanying Amendment was filed February 13, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Final Rejection dated December 15, 2025.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections under §101 and §103 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are hereby maintained.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
NOTE: A follow up interview is suggested to discuss various proposals by the Examiner. Please use the AIR form at the end of this Action to schedule an interview.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this Application.
No Claims have been cancelled in the Amendment.
The independent Claims – Claim 1 and Claim 11 and Claim 18 were amended in substantially identical fashion.
The dependent Claims were not amended or only amended in minor ways.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with regard to Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
610
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
267
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
293
817
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation:
Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01
Here, no special meaning is detected. These terms appear – subject to further consideration – to be defined in the specification based on their plain and ordinary meaning. As noted in the Amendment, the changes to Claim 1 relate generally to the following:
Global and regional networks are specifically recited
Additional routing factors are recited to include: the fees charged; probability of chargeback; and probability of fraud
No limitations were added with respect to the “network pairings” features of the claim.
With regard to §101:
Respectfully, while the Claim has been amended, it does not substantially advance prosecution in the sense of eligibility under §101. The additional limitations are recited at an extremely high level of generality. Merely reciting additional factors to be considered in routing credit and debit card transactions is highly conceptual and constitutes an abstract idea. Furthermore, these factors are extremely common and well known in the prior art.
There is no specificity recited in the claim as to “how” these factors are used in routing transactions. There is no specificity with regard to the relation between these factors and the “network pairings” aspect of the Claims. Thus, these limitations lack the specificity required under §101. The amendments to the Claim do not alter the analysis set for the Final Rejection regarding §101. The Claim merely recites a series of very common factors that can be used in a machine learning process to automatically route transactions in a least cost manner or low latency manner. Other factors are well known.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of using a ML model to make routing decisions using some unspecified, generic model and training data. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
With regard to §103:
To begin, it is noteworthy that – as well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art – most global transaction processing networks have affiliated networks, for example, on a regional basis. Therefore, from the outset, routing transactions based on regional pairings – i.e. global networks and the regional networks with which each is affiliated – is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the Claim does not recite any analysis on the basis of a “specific” pairing; that is, there is no analysis or factors based on a specific global-regional pair or group of such pairs, such as pairs made up of a single global network and one of a plurality of regional networks, which could be the case. Thus, the claim could benefit from greater specificity in these regards.
That said, despite the Amendment, it is observed that Claim 1, even with its additional factors recited, still reads on the Kettler publication, which is Applicant’s own publication and very familiar to Applicant.
For example, Kettle teaches the “pairing” of an acquirer and a global payment network, as illustrated in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
580
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, a regional transaction processor or network can be considered an acquirer because it processes transactions on a more local or regional basis, as compared to the global networks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand this reality.
Thus, Kettler teaches the following:
Affiliated networks: 0041; 0049; 0091. As noted above, the existence and well-understood nature, purpose and function of affiliated networks renders obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art the limitation of “network pairings.”
Regional banks and multiple network routing: 0003; 0006
Factors to be considered in routing: 0012; 0038-0039
Fees charged and least cost routing: 0004; 0074
Probability of chargeback: 0074
Fraud or risk: 0074
Value of the transaction or amount: Abstract
Latency: 0086. It is also noted that the “availability” of a network clearly indicates to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it may be slower due to high traffic volume and therefore a factor directly related to latency. See, for example: 0007; 0012; 0035; 0060
Preferences: 0005; 0032
Accordingly, the Rejection must be maintained.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to both §§101, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
457
857
media_image5.png
Greyscale
All of these assertions may be true. For argument’s sake, they are accepted as being true. The problem remains that they are recited in the Claim at about the same high level of generality as quoted above. Such generality is inconsistent with 101. Such generality constitutes an abstract idea and a mere concept. Stated another way, the Claim merely stands in an “apply it” form. Greater specificity is required.
With regard to 103, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
375
862
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Office simply disagrees with this over-simplification of Kettler. The Claim recites machine learning and “predictive” parameters. It is respectfully submitted that the “pseudo-networks” of Kettler for “simulating” routing conditions is tantamount to such predictions.
Furthermore, Kettler certainly teaches the risk of chargebacks and fraud, as follows:
[0047] Acquirer processor 170 may also receive information from payment network 124, such as confirmation or rejection of an attempted transaction using payment vehicle 102, and may convey that information to the appropriate POS terminal. Moreover, acquirer processor 170 may provide security and/or encryption services to merchant 106 and payment network 124, such that payments processed at pin pad terminal 110 may be completed with a decreased risk of data or financial theft or loss. Acquirer processor 170 may be located, for example, at a remote location from merchant 106 that uses its services, and may, for example, interact with merchant 106 primarily over an electronic network, such as a data network or the Internet.
[0074] Step 230 may include routing signature debit transactions to a least cost acquirer processor and PIN-less network. In some embodiments, signature debit transactions may be converted and routed to a least cost PIN-less network based on identification of a desired breakeven transaction amount for the PIN-less debit network. For example, in one embodiment, step 230 may involve routing signature debit transaction to PIN-less networks by leveraging a processor's relationship with a given network, or between a merchant and a network. Specifically, eligible transactions may be determined based on BIN and organization ID. For example, a particular BIN may be used for PIN-less network eligibility (accounting for large percentages of total network volume), and organization ID (“Org ID”) may be used to set thresholds for eligibility, such as a minimum of $X MM in annual sales and a maximum of 0.x % chargeback rate. Such chargeback rate thresholding may be used as a proxy for e-commerce eligibility and/or risk profile analysis. In another embodiment, step 255 may involve “PIN prompting,” which reduces acceptance costs by shifting signature transactions to PIN debit transactions, and seamlessly routing signature debit transactions to least-cost PIN-less debit networks. (Emphasis Added)
Accordingly, the Rejection under 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. using machine learning to make routing decisions). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0265680 to Lynch et al. This reference relates to the concept of the role of regional networks.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0233597 to Peterson et al. This reference relates to the concept of least cost routing.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. teams). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
April 17, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights