DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Apr. 6, 2026, and is made Non-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 and 3–17 are now pending and examined with Claim 1 in independent form.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 14 are presently amended.
Claims 2 and 18 are presently cancelled
No Claims are presently added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Jun. 7, 2024, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Applicant's Amendment to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), (b) have been rendered moot. Applicant cancelled Claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant states “[they] will submit formal drawings before the close of prosecution.” Examiner is unable to hold drawing objections in abeyance and Applicant was notified of same. Non-Final Act. mailed Nov. 4, 2025, at 4 (“The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.”). Applicant’s omission of corrected drawings is a not a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. 37 C.F.R. 1.85(a) (“a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (37 CFR 1.135(c))”). Applicant is on notice that corrected drawings must be provided next round, or “[t]he Office will not enter such an amendment. See Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 265 F.3d 1249, 60 USPQ2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If there is time remaining to reply to the non-final Office action (or within any extension of time pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)), applicant will be notified to complete the reply within the remaining time period to avoid abandonment.” MPEP § 714.03. The drawing objection is MAINTAINED.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 remains directed to a method or organizing human activity and to steps that can be performed mentally. Applicant’s contention that the claim cannot be performed in the human mind (Applicant’s Reply at 7–8) is addressed below.
The Specification describes the alleged technical solution as a particular configuration of components and sequence of operations: (1) a "transaction modifier engine" is "configured to integrate behind the acquirer processor allowing the system to intercept the transaction within the transactional platform framework" (¶ 58); (2) the system "intercept[s] communications between the legacy acquirer processor and the acquiring bank to enhance their settlement capabilities in-transit by leveraging communication between both" (¶ 54); (3) this integration enables companies "to use an existing transactional platform's gateways, acquirer processors, and/or acquiring banks without adding any additional code (i.e., no-code integration)" (¶ 54) so that the “hard-coded” “instructions” of “a company's digital framework,” which “cannot be easily altered” absent “alter[ing] the code according to each merchant’s request, which is not feasible due to cost and time constraints” need not be changed (¶ 46); and (4) the modification itself is performed by an "advanced billing engine configured to pull each company's settlement instructions from the data stores, match the transaction, merchant, and settlement instructions, and/or generate the settlement instructions that are sent to the acquiring bank" (¶ 51), based on “settlement instructions [ ] recorded in the system data store layer" (¶ 49). The Independent Claims, however, does not capture this solution. The Independent Claim (1) do not recite that the transaction modifier engine is integrated behind the acquirer processor; (2) do not positively recite that the engine intercepts the first transactional data in transit between the acquirer processors and the acquiring banks, instead reciting only that the system "receive[s] ... first transactional data from one or more acquirer processors"; (3) do not recite that the integration does not require changing the hard coding of the transactional platform; and (4) do not recite how the modification is performed (i.e., that stored, pre-configured settlement instructions are pulled from a data store, matched to the transaction and merchant, and used to generate the funding instructions sent to the acquiring bank.) Instead, the claims recite the asserted modification of transactional data as a result to "modify ... the first transactional data into second transactional data using the transactional information" using generic components and without reciting the mechanism by which the first transactional data is converted into the second transactional data. This is unlike Enfish (Applicant’s Reply at 9) where the claims themselves recited the specific data structure (a self-referential table) that achieved the improvement. Here, the claims recite only the desired result and lack a specific configuration. 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. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, the claim cannot be an improvement to the computer or another technology. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, no inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d). (Applicant’s Reply at 10)
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 3–17 have been considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s Reply at 11–15. The rejection under § 102 is withdrawn.
Drawings
Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are objected to because portions are illegible and do not have “satisfactory reproduction characteristics” as evidence by reviewing the applicable Figures from recently published PG PUB US 2024/0412182 A1. See, 37 CFR 1.84(l).
Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are objected to because “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1⁄8 inch) in height.” See, 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. “[O]bjections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).” MPEP § 608.02(e).
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 and 3–17 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 and 3–17 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1 and 3–17 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.”
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 system for processing electronic payments comprising: one or more computers comprising one or more central processing units (CPUs) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the one or more computers to:
[B] integrate, by the one or more CPUs, a transaction modifier engine with a transactional platform, the transaction modifier engine configured to modify transactional data;
[C] receive, by the one or more CPUs, first transactional data from one or more acquirer processors;
[D] compare, by the one or more CPUs, the first transactional data to transactional information stored by the transaction modifier engine;
[E] modify, by the one or more CPUs, the first transactional data into second transactional data using the transactional information; and
[F] send, by the one or more CPUs, the second transactional data to one or more acquiring banks, wherein the transactional platform comprises a link to one or more payment gateways;
[G] wherein the one or more payment gateways are configured to receive the transactional data from a merchant;
[H] wherein the one or more payment gateways are configured to send the transactional data to the one or more acquirer processors as the first transactional data; and
[I] wherein the one or more acquirer processors are configured to send the first transactional data to the one or more acquiring banks.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “A system for processing [ ] payments,” in the preamble, Limitation A, which recites a “long-standing commercial practice” and “legal interaction” under the organizing human activity exception because processing payments, which represents a promise to pay, recites “agreements in the form of contracts” and “legal obligations” between two entities. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–I are the required processing steps, communications, and data inputs required for “processing payments” and therefore, recites the same exception. Id.
Alternatively2, Limitations B–I, as drafted, recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
. . .
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B–I, recite collecting information (Limitations C, F, G, H, I) and analyzing it (Limitations B, D, E), where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Limitations B and E are mental processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “modify transaction data” (Limitation B) and to “modify … the first transactional data into second transactional data using the transaction information” (Limitation E) in any possible way, including mental processes. Limitations B and E covers any solution to “modify transaction data” (Limitation B) and to “modify … the first transactional data into second transactional data using the transaction information” (Limitation E) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. The specification describes the modification only functionally as pulling stored settlement instructions, matching them, and generating instructions. Spec. ¶ 51. Likewise, Limitation D is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because collecting and comparing known information (i.e., “the first transactional data to transactional information stored”) are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind under Classen. “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another” or a multi-step mental process. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B).
If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims recite the combination of these abstract idea exceptions.
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 system comprising one or more central processing units (CPUs) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions; “electronic” characterization of “payments” (computer); a transaction modifier engine (software) with a transactional platform (software); one or more acquirer processors; one or more acquiring banks; and one or more payment gateways
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)). Here, the recited operations are performed by conventional, pre-existing legacy payment platforms (Spec. ¶ 45) and the claimed invention is described as integrating those existing platforms rather than altering how any computer operates. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 54. Because the recited functions are carried out by generic computer components, the computer is not being improved and is merely used as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The specification characterizes the advantages of the system in terms of business outcomes such as cost savings and revenue capture (¶¶ 2, 3), faster residual delivery and flexible deposit methods (¶ 10), and fraud-prevention/dispute management (¶ 11), rather than in terms of any specific technical improvement to the computer itself. To the extent a graphical user interface (GUI) is recited, it is described only at ahigh functional level for displaying reports and dashboards. Spec. ¶¶ 49, 67, Figs. 9–15).
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. ¶¶ 39, 91–94. A machine is “particular” only when it imposes a meaningful limit on the claims scope. MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, any general-purpose computer, processor, or server would satisfy the claim’s hardware requirements, which confirms that the hardware components are generic rather than “particular.” MPEP § 2106.05(b); Spec. ¶¶ 39, 91–94, Fig. 16. The specification describes each computer component using broad, open-ended language without restricting the claimed hardware to any particular design or architecture. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 92.
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. ¶ 107 (“the operations can be processed by a general-purpose computer selectively activated or configured by one or more computer programs stored in the computer memory, cache, or obtained over a network.”); ¶ 107 (“The apparatus can be specially constructed for the required purpose, such as a special purpose computer.”); ¶ 13 (“the system is configured to integrate one or more prior art services into a merchant/business transaction platform without coding and/or using only a portion of a payment platform's code”); ¶ 40 (“the no-code implementation is configured to work with any conventional merchant platforms integrated with any payment gateways (and/or terminals) that are supported by one legacy processor and/or the processor itself”); ¶ 47 (“the system is configured to interface with any company linked to any payment gateway (and/or terminal) supported by one legacy processor (e.g., Total System Services LLC® as one non-limiting example) and/or the processor itself.”); ¶ 63 (“the transaction modifier engine is configured to integrate advanced payment capabilities into an existing payment provider (e.g., Authorize.Net®, Network Merchants, LLC®, Total System Services LLC®, or any gateway that supports Total System Services LLC® systems or other desired systems”).); ¶ 92 (“any conventional computer hardware in order to transform an electrical input into a different output.”); ¶ 92 (“the computer readable medium 1636 includes any data storage that stores data … the non-transitory computer readable medium 1636 includes any physical or material medium that is used to tangibly store the desired information, steps, and/or instructions and which is configured to be accessed by a computer 1640 or processor 1632.”); ¶ 93 (“the networks 1639a, 1639b include one or more wide area networks ("WAN"), direct connections (e.g., through a universal serial bus port), or other forms of computer-readable media 1636, and/or any combination thereof.”); ¶ 94 (“components of the networks 1639a, 1639b include any number of personal computers 1640 which include for example desktop computers, laptop computers, and/or any fixed, generally non-mobile internet appliances coupled through the LAN 1639a.”); ¶ 94 (“configured for use by any type of user”); ¶ 94 (“the user 1631 includes a user 1631a coupled to the computer system 1610 using a desktop computer, and/or laptop computers, or any fixed, generally non-mobile internet appliances coupled through the internet 1639b”); ¶ 94 (“the user 1631b connects using any mobile computing 1631c to wireless coupled to the computer system 1610”); ¶ 96 (“Any portion of the structures and/or principles included in some embodiments can be applied to any and/or all embodiments: it is understood that features from some embodiments presented herein are combinable with other features according to some other embodiments.”); ¶ 107 (“Any portion of the structures and/or principles included in some embodiments can be applied to any and/or all embodiments: it is understood that features from some embodiments presented herein are combinable with other features according to some other embodiments.”); ¶ 108 (“Computer-readable storage media, as used herein, refers to physical or tangible storage (as opposed to signals) and includes without limitation volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable storage media implemented in any method or technology for the tangible storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.”); ¶ 63 (“the system is configured to use gateway application program interfaces (APis) to connect to independent software vendors (ISVs).”); ¶ 90 (“the computer system 1610 is configured to operate and/or process computer-executable code of one or more software modules of the aforementioned system and method.”); ¶ 91 (“the interfaces 1635a, 1635b coupled to at least one processor 1632 are configured to process one or more of the software modules (e.g., such as enterprise applications 1638).”); ¶ 92 (“the software application modules 1638 are configured to send and receive data from a database”); ¶ 94 (“some embodiments include at least one user 1631a, 1631b, coupled wirelessly and accessing one or more software modules of the system including at least one enterprise application 1638 via an input and output ("I/0") 1637c”); ¶ 45 (“conventional transaction platform … conventional payment gateways … conventional acquirer processors”); ¶ 57 (“conventional acquirer processors”); ¶¶ 63, 64 (“conventional merchant platforms”); ¶ 93 (“a conventional computer network via the network interface 1635a”); ¶ 102 (“"Simultaneously" as used herein includes lag and/or latency times associated with a conventional and/or proprietary computer, such as processors and/or networks described herein”); Fig. 16.
The generic processor, here, performs calculations (functions) and executes instructions that are programmed by software directed to the abstract idea. Spec. ¶ 92. 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.
Limitation A describes the non-transitory computer readable media in communication in some way with the central processing units (CPUs). Limitation A further describes the CPUs executing instructions stored in one or more non-transitory computer readable media 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 CPUs and non-transitory computer readable media, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–I describe the CPUs, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, 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 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.
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 system comprising one or more central processing units (CPUs) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions; “electronic” characterization of “payments” (computer); a transaction modifier engine (software) with a transactional platform (software); one or more acquirer processors; one or more acquiring banks; and one or more payment gateways), are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure3. Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. Spec. ¶ 39, 91–94, 96, 102 (describing each component using exemplary language as generic or known computing equipment and networks).
(1) A system comprising one or more central processing units (CPUs) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions; “electronic” characterization of “payments” (computer); a transaction modifier engine (software) with a transactional platform (software); one or more acquirer processors; one or more acquiring banks; and one or more payment gateways are WRC in the financial technology field. Spec. ¶¶ 45, 57, 63, 64, 91–94..
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. ¶¶ 92, 93.
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. Spec. ¶ 45. 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.
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 a non-conventional ordered arrangement. 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 cannot be an improvement to the computer or another technology. MPEP § 2106.05(f). No inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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.
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 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 further narrow the abstract idea by specifying a data path on which the modification occurs and a result (intercepting or preventing a transmission) but they do not recite any technical mechanism for how the interception, hard-coding bypass, or prevention is accomplished, describing these functions only at a high level of generality. Spec. ¶¶ 54, 58. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). The recited acquirer processors, acquiring banks, and hard-coded transactional platform are described as conventional, generic payment-industry components performing their ordinary functions (Spec. ¶¶ 45, 46), so these limitations merely apply the abstract idea within the existing payment-processing environment and link it to that field of use. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (h). The arrangement Applicant credits with the alleged improvement is described in the specification (¶¶ 54, 58) but is not recited n the claims. 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.
Dependent Claims 8 and 9 merely specify the content of the abstract-idea output (the funding/settlement instructions being generated) and recite a fundamental financial practice of allocating or splitting a payment among accounts, which is itself part of the abstract idea exception. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 51. The specification describes generating and applying such split/funding instructions only functionally, via a billing engine that pulls and matches stored instructions (¶ 51), without any specific technical implementation, so these limitations add significantly more.
Regarding Dependent Claims 10, 11, 12, and 13, setting prices, creating subscription or volume-based pricing programs, and selecting deposit methods are themselves commercial/financial practices within the abstract-idea grouping, and the recited "dynamic pricing module" is described functionally as software that enables a user to configure pricing, without any specific technical mechanism. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 59, 60, 61. These limitations merely narrow the abstract idea to a particular type of pricing/funding configuration applied on generic computer components and therefore neither integrate the exception into a practical application nor supply an inventive concept.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, storing data and analyzing it are recited at a high level of generality, invoke the computer in its ordinary capacity to store and process data, and constitute the type of data collection and analysis that may be performed as a mental process. Spec. ¶¶ 51, 52. The specification describes the storage and reconciliation/analysis functions using generic data-store and reporting language (Spec. ¶¶ 49, 52), so these limitations are insignificant data-gathering/extra-solution activity that merely apply the abstract idea using generic components. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g).
Dependent Claims 15, 16, and 17 recite the GUI at a high functional level as a dashboard for configuring settlement instructions and displaying reports, without any unconventional technical mechanism, specific user-interface improvement, or non-generic display technology. Spec. ¶¶ 49, 52, 67. Generating a generic GUI to receive user inputs and display the results of the abstract idea merely adds generic computer components. Conventional display/reporting functionality, and presenting or displaying data is insignificant post-solution activity that does not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g).
Combined Consideration. Considered in any combination, the dependent claims' additional limitations either further recite the abstract idea itself, recite that idea at a high level of generality, or invoke generic, conventional computer and payment-industry components in their ordinary capacity. None recites a specific technical mechanism for achieving the claimed results, and the arrangement Applicant identifies as the improvement is described in the specification but not claimed with the required specificity. Accordingly, none of Dependent Claims 3–17 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 and 3–17 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.
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 “It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. … Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
3 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