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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 12/23/2025 amending claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, and 14; canceling claim 3; and adding new claims 15-21. In light of Applicant’s amendments, examiner has withdrawn the previous objections, the previous § 101 rejection; and the previous grounds of § 103 rejection. Examiner has, however, established new objections for claims 1, 8-9, and 15-16; new § 101 rejection for claims 1-2 and 4-21; and new grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 1-2 and 4-21 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection and new grounds of § 103 rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and adding of new claims, the instant rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-21 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f), § 365(a) or (b), or § 386(a) based upon an application filed in Europe (EP) App. No. 23194062.8 on August 29, 2023. The priority claim to the foreign priority document in question was timely made in the application data sheet filed August 20, 2024. The Office has received a certified copy of the foreign application in question on February 25, 2026.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101:
Applicant argues in page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks:
The[] claim elements define technical features that enable claimed embodiments to perform real-time settlement of payment transactions not only when an important resource (a central bank) is available, but also when it is not available. And as to the latter, this is done without sacrificing the benefits and advantages obtained by performing settlements on a net, rather than a per transaction, basis. In at least these ways, these claimed embodiments integrate the purported abstract idea into the claimed embodiments by defining improvements in the operation of a computer or any other technology or technical field and thereby satisfy at least Step 2A Prong Two.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are recited in high level of abstraction lacking details and specifics as to how any technological solution is carried out. Further, Applicant’s solution appears to be a business solution to a business problem (i.e., problem with opening hours of central bank) instead of technological solution to a technological problem. As such, instant claims as currently recited are not patent eligible under § 101.
Prior Art under § 103: Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments directed to the previous grounds of § 103 rejection but finds them moot in view of the new grounds of § 103 rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1 and 9, and adding new independent claim 16.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of informalities in the following recitations:
. . . at the end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle; and . . .
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, using the pseudo settlement agent to forward the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
Applicant could amend claim 1 to recite:
. . . at [[the]] an end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle; and . . .
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, using the pseudo settlement agent to forward the plurality of payments to the participating financial institutions as cleared and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
Claim 8 is objected to because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein adjusting the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises adjusting the liquidity positions at the central bank.
Applicant could amend claim 2 to recite:
. . . wherein adjusting the liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions further comprises adjusting the liquidity positions at the central bank.
Claim 9 is objected to because of informalities in the following recitations:
. . . at the end of the settlement cycle, reduce, relative to a number of received payments in the plurality of payments, a number of liquidity position adjustments that are processed and a number of net funds movements between the participating financial institutions by performing at least: . . .
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, forwarding, by the pseudo settlement agent, the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared and making adjustments, based on the plurality of payments, to liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements independent of whether a central bank will be open when transactions of a settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
Applicant could amend claim 9 to recite:
. . . at [[the]] an end of the settlement cycle, reduce, relative to a number of received payments in the plurality of payments, a number of liquidity position adjustments that are processed and a number of net funds movements between the participating financial institutions by performing at least: . . .
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, forwarding, by the pseudo settlement agent, the plurality of payments to the participating financial institutions as cleared and making adjustments, based on the plurality of payments, to liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements independent of whether a central bank will be open when transactions of [[a]] the settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
Claim 15 is objected to because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein the batch payment clearing system being adapted to adjust the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises the batch payment clearing system being adapted to cause the liquidity positions at the central bank to be adjusted.
Applicant could amend claim 15 to recite:
. . . wherein the batch payment clearing system being adapted to adjust the liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions further comprises the batch payment clearing system being adapted to cause the liquidity positions at the central bank to be adjusted.
Claim 16 is objected to because of informalities in the following recitations:
. . . at the end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle; and . . .
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, using the pseudo settlement agent to forward the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
Applicant could amend claim 16 to recite:
. . . at [[the]] an end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle; and . . .
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, using the pseudo settlement agent to forward the plurality of payments to the participating financial institutions as cleared and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 16-21, is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 9-15 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-21 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-2 and 4-21, however, recite an abstract idea of providing batch payment clearing. The creation of providing batch payment clearing, as recited in the independent claims 1, 9, and 16, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 9, and 16, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“settling, at the end of the settlement cycle, payment of the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle independent of whether a central bank is available by performing at least: making a determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle; when the determination is that the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing direct settlement with the central bank; and when the determination is that the central bank is not available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing at least: determin[ing] whether the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets rules of the real-time payment clearing service; forward[ing] the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions” (claim 1);
“reduc[ing], relative to a number of received payments in the plurality of payments, a number of liquidity position adjustments that are processed and a number of net funds movements between the participating financial institutions at the end of the settlement cycle by performing at least: determin[ing] whether the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets rules of the real-time payment clearing service; when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, forwarding the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared and making adjustments, based on the plurality of payments, to liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements independent of whether a central bank will be open when transactions of a settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions” (claim 9); and
“settling, at the end of the settlement cycle, payment of the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle independent of whether a central bank is available by performing at least: making a determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle; when the determination is that the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing direct settlement with the central bank; and when the determination is that the central bank is not available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing at least: reducing, relative to a number of received payments in the plurality of payments, a number of liquidity position adjustments that are processed and a number of net funds movements between the participating financial institutions by performing at least: determin[ing] whether the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets rules of the real-time payment clearing service; and when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, forward[ing] the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions” (claim 16).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1, 9, and 16, recite additional elements:
“a suitably programmed computer system or network” (claims 1 and 16);
“a pseudo settlement agent associated with a real-time payment clearing service” (claims 1, 9, and 16); and
“a computer system or network having one or more programmed processors” (claim 9).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., data gathering):
“receiving a plurality of payments for clearing and settlement between account holders of participating financial institutions for clearing and settlement, wherein the plurality of payments are received and stored during a settlement cycle” (claim 1);
“calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution at the end of the settlement cycle” (claim 1);
“receiv[ing] a plurality of payments for clearing and settlement between account holders of participating financial institutions for clearing and settlement, wherein the plurality of payments are received and stored during a settlement cycle” (claim 9);
“calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution at the end of the settlement cycle based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle” (claim 9);
“receiving a plurality of payments for clearing and settlement between account holders of participating financial institutions for clearing and settlement, wherein the plurality of payments are received and stored during a settlement cycle” (claim 16); and
“calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution at the end of the settlement cycle based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle” (claim 16).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2), are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[0014] According to a second aspect of the disclosure, there is provided a computer-implemented batch payment clearing system, the batch payment clearing system comprising a computer system or network having one or more processors [].
[0038] Figure 5 illustrates a system adapted to implement an embodiment of the disclosure. This involves a batch clearing system 51 and a pseudo settlement agent 52, interacting with the participating financial institutions 36 and a real time clearing system 35a (the real time clearing system 35a may interact with a central bank, but this is not shown). The pseudo settlement agent 52 may be implemented by a module of a real time clearing system, by a virtual extension to a real time clearing system, or another system altogether implementing the relevant real time clearing system functionality. The batch clearing system collects transactions 30 over a settlement period and nets them, the pseudo settlement agent 52 determines whether liquidity rules 52a permit settlement, and if so the liquidity positions 36a of the participating financial institutions are adjusted to reflect the settlement and the participating financial institutions 36 are notified. Adjustments to account positions held at the central bank will be made in due course as for conventional real-time gross settlement.
This is a description of general-purpose computing system. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving” and “calculating” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “receiving” and “calculating” were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, “receive” information over a network in a merely generic manner. Additionally, similarly to Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, perform repetitive calculations. The courts have recognized “receiving” and “calculating” functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 16, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2 and 4-8 depend on independent claim 1; dependent claims 10-15 depend on independent claim 9; and dependent claims 17-21 depend on independent claim 16. The elements in dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-21,which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“determining the net change in position for said each participating financial institution comprises calculating net fund movements between the participating financial institutions to provide a net settlement position between the financial institutions, and for said each participating financial institution summing balances in the net settlement positions involving that financial institution” (claim 2: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the pseudo settlement agent is implemented by one or more elements of the real-time payment clearing service” (claim 4: additional elements);
“if settlement using the pseudo settlement agent fails, a further attempt at settlement is made after removing one or more payments” (claim 5: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“if settlement fails, all payments involving participating financial institutions that failed a liquidity rule are removed from the plurality of payments, and the further attempt at settlement is made thereafter” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“making the determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle comprises: determining whether the central bank is closed at the end of the settlement cycle” (claim 7: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“adjusting the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises adjusting the liquidity positions at the central bank” (claim 8: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“in determining the net change in position for said each participating financial institution the batch payment clearing system calculates net fund movements between the participating financial institutions to provide a net settlement position between the financial institutions, and for said each participating financial institution sums balances in the net settlement positions involving that financial institution” (claim 10: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the pseudo settlement agent is implemented by one or more elements of the real-time payment clearing service” (claim 11: additional elements);
“if settlement using the pseudo settlement agent fails, the batch payment clearing system is adapted to make a further attempt at settlement after removing one or more payments” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“if settlement fails, the batch payment clearing system is adapted to remove all payments involving participating financial institutions that failed a liquidity rule from the plurality of payments, and to make the further attempt at settlement thereafter” (claim 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the batch payment clearing system being adapted to determine whether the central bank will be open when transactions of the settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, and forwarding the transactions directly to the central bank for settlement if the central bank is open and using the pseudo settlement agent if the central bank is not open” (claim 14: where “determining” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “forwarding” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the batch payment clearing system being adapted to adjust the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises the batch payment clearing system being adapted to cause the liquidity positions at the central bank to be adjusted” (claim 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“determining the net change in position for said each participating financial institution comprises calculating net fund movements between the participating financial institutions to provide a net settlement position between the financial institutions, and for said each participating financial institution summing balances in the net settlement positions involving that financial institution” (claim 17: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the pseudo settlement agent is implemented by one or more elements of the real-time payment clearing service” (claim 18: additional elements);
“if settlement using the pseudo settlement agent fails, a further attempt at settlement is made after removing one or more payments” (claim 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“if settlement fails, all payments involving participating financial institutions that failed a liquidity rule are removed from the plurality of payments, and the further attempt at settlement is made thereafter” (claim 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“making the determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle comprises: determining whether the central bank is closed at the end of the settlement cycle” (claim 21: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 § 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 115423609 A) in view of Johnston (US 2021/0182810 A1), and further in view of Jayaram (US 2023/0087478 A1).
As to independent claims 1, 9, and 16
Zhao shows:
a computer system or network having one or more processors programmed (Zhao: pages 2 and 3 – disclosing: Banking fund clearing and settlement platform communicating with access channels, internal systems are middleware, is characterized in that the clearing and settlement platform includes a clearing and settlement pre-module, a clearing and settlement service module and a back management system. Further, bank industry fund clearing and settlement method characterized in also including performing clearing batch tasks.) to:
receiving, by the clearing system, a plurality of payments for clearing and settlement between account holders of participating financial institutions for clearing and settlement, wherein the plurality of payments are received and stored during a settlement cycle (Zhao: page 2 – disclosing: The clearing and settlement platform includes a clearing and settlement pre-module, a clearing and settlement service module and a back management system . . . the pre-processing unit is used for end-of-day, daytime and error transaction processing, the clearing unit is used for timed clearing and real-time clearing, and the settlement unit is used for T+N, T+0 and hour level settlement, the payment/account reconciliation unit is used for automatic payment, audit payment and day-end reconciliation . . . [and] storing the settlement data to be cleared);
using a pseudo settlement agent associated with a real-time payment clearing service (Zhao: pages 2 and 5 – disclosing: Clearing and settlement front-end module is used to accept various clearing and settlement businesses, including end-of-day, real-time and error acceptance, settlement details download and settlement form download; support multiple ways to register settlement data to be cleared, such as ASF interface, FTP, etc. Further, clearing and settlement service module includes a preprocessing unit, a clearing-unit, a settlement unit and a payment/reconciliation unit; the preprocessing unit is used for end-of-day, daytime and error transaction processing, the sorting unit is used for liming clearing and real-time clearing, the settlement unit is used for T+N, T+0 and hourly settlement, and the payment/ reconciliation unit it is-used for automatic payment, audit payment and end-of-day reconciliation.);
when each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, using the pseudo settlement agent to forward the plurality of payments to participating financial institutions as cleared and adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions held within the pseudo settlement agent or within the associated real-time payment clearing service (Zhao: pages 2 – disclosing: A banking fund clearing and settlement method, running on the banking fund clearing and settlement platform as above, comprising the following steps: obtaining the to-be-account data, the account-checking task generating account-checking result data; generating the settlement data to be cleared according to the account checking result data, and uploading to the file server; notifying the settlement platform to obtain the settlement data to be cleared; and performing registration acceptance; obtaining the acceptance completion data, clearing and processing the acceptance completion data according to the clearing rule; obtaining the clearing completion data, according to the settlement rule, performing settlement processing to the clearing completion data, generating a settlement list; screening the settlement bill according with the drawing condition, calling the uniform payment system to finish the money-making service.).
Zhao does not show:
at the end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle;
settling, at the end of the settlement cycle, payment of the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle independent of whether a central bank is available
making a determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle;
when the determination is that the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing direct settlement with the central bank;
when the determination is that the central bank is not available at the end of the settlement cycle, using other means;
determining whether the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets rules of the real-time payment clearing service; and
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions.
Johnston shows:
at the end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62);
settling, at the end of the settlement cycle, payment of the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle independent of whether a central bank is available (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62);
determining whether the net changes in position for each participating financial institution meet the rules of the real-time payment clearing service (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62); and
when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62).
Motivation to combine Zhao and Johnston:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Zhao by at the end of the settlement cycle, calculating a net change in position for each participating financial institution based on the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle; settling, at the end of the settlement cycle, payment of the plurality of payments received during the settlement cycle independent of whether a central bank is available; determining whether the net changes in position for each participating financial institution meet the rules of the real-time payment clearing service; and when the net change in position for said each participating financial institution meets the rules of the real-time payment clearing service, adjusting liquidity positions of the participating financial institutions to reflect net funds movements, wherein the rules of the real-time payment clearing service comprise liquidity rules for the participating financial institutions of Johnston in order to transmit payments from a payor associated with a first payment processing network to a payee associated with a second payment processing network (Johnston: page 1, ¶ 1).
Jayaram shows:
making a determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle (Jayaram: page 13, ¶¶ 129-130);
when the determination is that the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing direct settlement with the central bank (Jayaram: page 13, ¶¶ 129-130); and
when the determination is that the central bank is not available at the end of the settlement cycle, using other means (Jayaram: page 13, ¶¶ 129-130).
Motivation to combine Zhao and Jayaram:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Zhao by making a determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle; when the determination is that the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle, performing direct settlement with the central bank; and when the determination is that the central bank is not available at the end of the settlement cycle, using other means of Jayaram in order to execute transactions at any time of the day (Jayaram: page 1, ¶ 1).
As to claims 2, 10, and 17, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claims 1, 9, and 16. Zhao does not show determining the net change in position for said each participating financial institution comprises calculating net fund movements between the participating financial institutions to provide a net settlement position between the financial institutions, and for said each participating financial institution summing balances in the net settlement positions involving that financial institution. Johnston shows determining the net change in position for said each participating financial institution comprises calculating net fund movements between the participating financial institutions to provide a net settlement position between the financial institutions, and for said each participating financial institution summing balances in the net settlement positions involving that financial institution (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Zhao by determining the net change in position for said each participating financial institution comprises calculating net fund movements between the participating financial institutions to provide a net settlement position between the financial institutions, and for said each participating financial institution summing balances in the net settlement positions involving that financial institution of Johnston in order to transmit payments from a payor associated with a first payment processing network to a payee associated with a second payment processing network (Johnston: page 1, ¶ 1).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claims 1, 9, and 18. Zhao also shows that the pseudo settlement agent is implemented by one or more elements of the real-time payment clearing service (Zhao: page 2 – disclosing: Clearing and settlement front-end module is used to accept various clearing and settlement businesses, including end-of-day, real-time and error acceptance, settlement details download and settlement form download.).
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claims 1, 9, and 16. Zhao also shows that if settlement using the pseudo settlement agent fails, a further attempt at settlement is made after removing one or more payments (Zhao: page 3 – disclosing: the sorting process according to the clearing rule to the receiving completion data, comprising: reading the acceptance completion data according to the first number rule, the first number rule is: taking the data of the settlement date and the accepted state, and classifying according to the product identification code number; the acceptance completion data according to the clearing account number splitting flow, the state updating in the clearing water is unclear, starting to score flow according to the clear water, taking the unclear state of the clear water, and updating the state into the clearing; checking the clearing rule, merchant information, product identification code information, checking whether there is, if not, directly marking the clearing failure, if there is, judging whether the state is enabled, if the state is not enabled, directly marking the clearing failure; according to the product identification code and the transaction type of the original data, marking the clearing direction, if not finding the corresponding clearing direction, the related clearing water is directly marked as clearing failure; clearing the clear detail of the original transaction, when the clearing process is failed, then the whole original transaction score of clearing and detail is divided into clearing failure; the successful checking of the flow sub-state is that the successful checking is successful; after clearing, the acceptance request state is updated to be completed.).
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claims 5, 12, and 19. Zhao also shows that if settlement fails, all payments involving participating financial institutions that failed a liquidity rule are removed from the plurality of payments, and the further attempt at settlement is made thereafter (Zhao: page 3 – disclosing: the sorting process according to the clearing rule to the receiving completion data, comprising: reading the acceptance completion data according to the first number rule, the first number rule is: taking the data of the settlement date and the accepted state, and classifying according to the product identification code number; the acceptance completion data according to the clearing account number splitting flow, the state updating in the clearing water is unclear, starting to score flow according to the clear water, taking the unclear state of the clear water, and updating the state into the clearing; checking the clearing rule, merchant information, product identification code information, checking whether there is, if not, directly marking the clearing failure, if there is, judging whether the state is enabled, if the state is not enabled, directly marking the clearing failure; according to the product identification code and the transaction type of the original data, marking the clearing direction, if not finding the corresponding clearing direction, the related clearing water is directly marked as clearing failure; clearing the clear detail of the original transaction, when the clearing process is failed, then the whole original transaction score of clearing and detail is divided into clearing failure; the successful checking of the flow sub-state is that the successful checking is successful; after clearing, the acceptance request state is updated to be completed.).
As to claim 14, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claim 16. Zhao does not show the batch payment clearing system being adapted to determine whether the central bank will be open when transactions of the settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, and forwarding the transactions directly to the central bank for settlement if the central bank is open and using the pseudo settlement agent if the central bank is not open. Johnston shows the batch payment clearing system being adapted to determine whether the central bank will be open when transactions of the settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, and forwarding the transactions directly to the central bank for settlement if the central bank is open and using the pseudo settlement agent if the central bank is not open (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhao by the batch payment clearing system being adapted to determine whether the central bank will be open when transactions of the settlement cycle will be ready for settlement, and forwarding the transactions directly to the central bank for settlement if the central bank is open and using the pseudo settlement agent if the central bank is not open of Johnston in order to transmit payments from a payor associated with a first payment processing network to a payee associated with a second payment processing network (Johnston: page 1, ¶ 1).
As to claims 7 and 21, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claims 1 and 16. Zhao does not show making the determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle comprises determining whether the central bank is closed at the end of the settlement cycle. Jayaram shows making the determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle comprises determining whether the central bank is closed at the end of the settlement cycle (Jayaram: page 13, ¶¶ 129-130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhao by making the determination whether the central bank is available at the end of the settlement cycle comprises determining whether the central bank is closed at the end of the settlement cycle of Jayaram in order to execute transactions at any time of the day (Jayaram: page 1, ¶ 1).
As to claims 8 and 15, Zhao in view of Johnston, and further in view of Jayaram, shows all the elements of claims 1 and 9. Zhao does not show that adjusting the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises adjusting the liquidity positions at the central bank. Johnston shows that adjusting the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises adjusting the liquidity positions at the central bank (Johnston: page 10, ¶ 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhao by adjusting the liquidity positions of the financial institutions further comprises adjusting the liquidity positions at the central bank of Johnston in order to transmit payments from a payor associated with a first payment processing network to a payee associated with a second payment processing network (Johnston: page 1, ¶ 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barnes (EP 4411614 A1) discloses: “A computer-implemented system operative to function as an automated clearing house (20) for transactions is described. The system comprises communication means (46) for sending and receipt of transaction-related information to a plurality of financial entities. It also comprises one or more payment systems (41) comprising defined transaction flows, messaging and orchestration of interactions between the automated clearing house and other financial entities. It also comprises one or more settlement systems (42) comprising a defined settlement method. Using the automated clearing house (20), a transaction is cleared and settled through the action of one of the payment systems (41) and an associated settlement system (42). A method of establishing a computer-implemented automated clearing house is also described.”
Tompkins, Michael, and Ariel Olivares. Clearing and settlement systems from around the world: A qualitative analysis. No. 2016-14. Bank of Canada Staff Discussion Paper, 2016.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights