DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 4/20/2026 are examined herein
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 are pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are currently amended.
Claims 7, 15, and 16 are previously presented.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the pending claims address a technical problem, through a technical solution, in which a “training mode” is provided to generate bound pairs of initiator parties and vendors parties, based on historical transaction data (see Remarks, pp. 6-7).
The argument is not persuasive. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. With regards to representative claim 1, the limitations drawn to maintaining bound pairs of initiator parties and vendor parties based on historical transaction data is not a technical improvement but an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The limitations drawn to using this data for matching and providing data indicating the match also fall under the abstract idea. The additional element of generating the pairs using a platform computing device and storing the bound pairs in a data structure are merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). These additional elements are described at a high level of generality in a manner which does not convey a technical improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, they do not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility framework, nor do they provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant further argues that the pending claims address the technical problem, through a technical solution, in which pairs are generated based on a threshold count of the pairs recurring in historic transaction data. The bound pairs then provide a basis for assessing whether the transactions involve known, bound pairs of initiator parties and vendor parties. "In this manner, identified pairs of parties are established to provide insight into propriety of [inconsistent parties in] pre-authorized transactions, which may be leveraged by decision-makers associated with authorizing the transactions." See, 0013 of the instant application, as filed. Applicant argues that the pending claims "provide for cross-domain assurance in connection with pre-authorized transactions. By providing cross-domain assurance, between the authentication or pre-authorization domain and the authorization domain, the binding platform enables the processing network to expand its functionality and to do something it could not do before. In this way, the receipt of the authorization request with an indicator of an initiator/vendor pair confidence, or mere indicator, is instructed as to the historical relationship or affiliation of the parties of the pair and/or the confidence that the pair is indeed proper." See, 0075 of the instant application, as filed, emphasis added. (see Remarks, pp. 7-8).
The argument is not persuasive. The receipt of an authorization request with an indicator of initiator/vendor pair confidence, or mere indicator, which conveys a historical relationship or affiliation of the parties of the pair also falls under the abstract idea. As described above, an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.
Applicant further argues that the realization of the pairs and generating of the pairs in real time contributes to a new technique which is a technical improvement.
The argument is not persuasive. The asserted “real-time” generation of the pairs does not amount to a technological improvement. The claims recite limitations drawn to collecting historical transaction data, generating, counting/matching pairs, storing pairs, appending an indicator, and forwarding an authorization request. This is an improvement to a business process and not to a computer or network technology itself. The “real time” aspect merely changes the speed or timing with which the abstract idea is performed. Faster execution using generic computing components does not transform the abstract idea into a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claims should be found eligible in view of Example 40 Claim 1 (see Remarks pg. 9).
The argument is not persuasive. The cited eligible claim is directed to a specific improvement in the operation of a computer network. The claims used collected network traffic metrics to dynamically alter the frequency and type of network monitoring performed by a network appliance, thereby improving network monitoring efficiency and reducing the performance burden imposed on the network itself. In contrast, the present claims do not improve the functioning of a computer network or any other technology. As discussed above, the present claims recite limitations drawn to collecting historical transaction data, counting/matching parties, storing pairs, appending an indicator, and forwarding an authorization request. This is an improvement to a business process and not to a computer or network technology itself.
Applicant further argues that the technical improvement includes the specific ordered combination of operations (see Remarks, pg. 10).
The argument is not persuasive. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Here, each component performs its ordinary function, and the ordered steps merely implement the abstract analysis on generic computing systems. Thus, the combination does not render a technological improvement. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained herein.
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 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 are directed to a method, system, or non-transitory computer product, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 9. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A computer-implemented method for use in connection with network transactions, the method comprising:
as part of a training mode, generating, by a platform computing device, in real time, bound pairs of initiator parties and vendor parties, based on historical transaction data including a threshold count of each of the bound pairs among historical transactions, each bound pair including one of the initiator parties and one of the vendor parties, the initiator parties specific to pre-authorization requests included in the historical transaction data and the vendor parties specific to authorization requests included in the historical transaction data; and
store the bound pairs in a data structure; and then
receiving, by the platform computing device, an authorization request for a transaction to an account, the authorization request including data specific to a first vendor party;
matching, by the platform computing device, the authorization request to a pre-authorization request, the pre-authorization request including a first initiator party;
matching, by the platform computing device, the first initiator party and the first vendor party, from the matched authorization request and pre-authorization request as a pair, to one of the bound pairs of initiator parties and vendor in the data structure;
appending, by the platform computing device, to the authorization request, an indicator of the match between the first initiator party and the first vendor party, and the one of the bound pairs in the data structure; and
forwarding the authorization request with the indicator to an issuer associated with the account.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they pertain to receiving, processing, and forwarding, transaction requests. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The platform computing device in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 9 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: platform computing device
Claim 9: processing network computing device
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. 0076-0078 about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 15-16 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 9, and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nightengale (US 2016/0260102 A1) discloses methods and systems where a fraud risk score tig given to a merchant for a proposed transaction with a consumer. The fraud risk score is generated by a payment account service provider, such as a credit card processor, using information from a pending transaction as well as information from other payment accounts that the consumer holds to which the payment account service provider is privy. Various factors, including indicators of elevated risk in other payment accounts, are custom-weighted by the merchant for the score.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights