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 Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 05/27/2026. Claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 11, 15, & 17 – 19 were amended in a reply filed 08/13/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 after final rejection on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claim 8 have obviated the previous claim objection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/13/2026 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 19 – 20, that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because the amended claims “integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by at least, utilizing a historical dispute database having an improved database storage and computation execution architecture in combination with a query filter, iteratively broadening a database query based on a threshold-based filtration of the query results alongside an in-database aggregation (as claimed in the full "wherein generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases comprises configuring the updated database query to cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database..." section of amended independent claim 1) to reduce record transfer between the historical dispute database and, e.g., at least one processor or the computing device executing other recitations of amended independent claim 1 outside the historical database. This integration further: improves data locality, reduces network bandwidth usage, and improves efficient usage of a distributed system," similar to claims 2 and 3 of Example 48.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and initially notes that the functionality of “iteratively broadening a database query based on a threshold-based filtration of the query results” is a part of the recited judicial exception itself. In particular, this functionality, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in in the human mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). For example, a human could search through records mentally or with a pen and paper and filter the results based on specific criteria.
Examiner further submits that the instant claims (e.g., searching a database using filters and determining a likelihood of a particular party prevailing in a dispute) have a vastly different fact pattern than those of Example 48 (e.g., speech separation). For example, Claim 2 of Example 48 is directed to receiving a mixed speech signal, converting the mixed speech signal, using a DNN to determine embedding vectors, partitioning the embedding vectors into clusters, applying binary masks to the clusters and synthesizing the result, combining the resultant signals into a mixed speech signal, and transmitting the mixed speech signal. Claim 2 of Example 48 recites a mental process as well as a mathematical calculation. However, Claim 2 of Example 48 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim reflects the improvement discussed in the disclosure by reciting details of how the DNN aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal, which are then synthesized into separate speech waveforms in the time domain and converted into a mixed speech signal, excluding audio from the undesired source. Therefore, Claim 2 of Example 48 is directed to an improvement to the technology of speech separation. In contrast, the instant claims merely invoke generic components as a tool to perform a database query and predict an outcome of a business-related dispute. The instant claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to an improvement to technology and therefore fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant specification, in [0019], states: “This dispute score is presented to any or all of the parties, thus helping the stakeholders to resolve disputes in fewer dispute stages. This quick resolution reduces the number of technical and operational resources expended by the various parties to resolve disputes. As such, aspects of the disclosure improve computing resource usage and the functioning of the underlying devices involved in resolving the disputes.” As per MPEP 2106.05(a), “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” Examiner submits that a mere reduction of computer usage does not change how it operates, nor does it improve computer functionality; rather, the computing device operates the same way but performs the same operations less often. The instant claims are directed to a judicial exception, which invokes generic computer components as a mere tool for implementation, rather to an improvement thereof. The claims are not directed to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or other technology; thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 – 20 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 – 7 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 8 – 14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 15 – 20 are directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites: “identify a first party and a second party involved in an active dispute case involving a payment instrument transaction; generate a database query configured to search the historical dispute database for a first number of historical dispute cases between the first party and the second party using a plurality of filtration criteria; execute the database query, and based on executing the database query, identify the first number of historical dispute cases resulting from the database query; determine that the first number of historical dispute cases is below a filtration threshold; in response to determining that the first number of historical dispute cases is below the filtration threshold: automatically remove at least one filtration criterion from the plurality of filtration criteria, and based on removing the at least one filtration criterion, generate an updated database query; submit the updated database query to the historical dispute database; based on submitting the updated database query, identify a second number of historical dispute cases larger than the first number of historical dispute cases; generate, from the second number of historical dispute cases, a first count of wins for the first party at a first stage in a dispute resolution process; generate, from the second number of historical dispute cases, a number of resolved cases at the first stage; compute a first stage win percentage for the first party based on the first count of wins and the number of resolved cases; weight the first stage win percentage by a first weight value assigned to the first stage, thereby resulting in a weighted first stage win percentage; generate a dispute score representing a likelihood of the first party or the second party in prevailing in the active dispute case over the other of the first party or the second party in the active dispute case, at least in part by combining the weighted first stage win percentage with at least one other weighted win percentage for at least one other stage; and transmit the dispute score for display to the first party or the second party; wherein generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases comprises configuring the updated database query to… select a plurality of records involving both the first party and the second party that were resolved at the first stage, count the plurality of records that were resolved in favor of the first party to generate the first count of wins associated with the first party, and count the plurality of records to generate the number of resolved cases.”
Independent claim 8 recites: “identifying an issuer and an acquirer involved in an active dispute case involving a payment instrument transaction; generating a database query configured to search a historical dispute database… for a first number of historical dispute cases between the issuer and the acquirer using a plurality of filtration criteria; execute the database query, and based on executing the database query, identify the first number of historical dispute cases resulting from the database query; determining that the first number of historical dispute cases is below a filtration threshold; in response to determining that the first number of historical dispute cases is below the filtration threshold: automatically removing at least one filtration criterion from the plurality of filtration criteria, and based on removing the at least one filtration criterion, generating an updated database query; submitting the updated database query to the historical dispute database; based on submitting the updated database query, identifying a second number of historical dispute cases larger than the first number of historical dispute cases; generating, from the second number of historical dispute cases, a first count of wins for the issuer at a first stage in a dispute resolution process; generating, from the second number of historical dispute cases, a number of resolved cases at the first stage; computing a first stage win percentage for the issuer based on the first count of wins and the number of resolved cases; modifying the first stage win percentage by multiplying the first stage win percentage by a first weight value assigned to the first stage, thereby resulting in a weighted first stage win percentage; generating a dispute score representing a likelihood of the issuer or the acquirer in prevailing in the active dispute case over the other of the issuer or the acquirer in the active dispute case, at least in part by combining the weighted first stage win percentage with at least one other weighted win percentage for at least one other stage; and transmitting the dispute score for display to the issuer or the acquirer; and wherein generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases comprises configuring the updated database query to… select a plurality of records involving both the issuer and the acquirer that were resolved at the first stage, count the plurality of records that were resolved in favor of the issuer to generate the first count of wins associated with the issuer, and count the plurality of records to generate the number of resolved cases.”
Independent claim 15 recites: “identify a first party and a second party involved in an active dispute case involving a payment instrument transaction; generate a database query configured to search a historical dispute database… for a first number of historical dispute cases between the first party and the second party using a plurality of filtration criteria; execute the database query, and based on executing the database query, identify the first number of historical dispute cases resulting from the database query; determine that the first number of historical dispute cases is below a filtration threshold; in response to determining that the first number of historical dispute cases is below the filtration threshold: automatically remove at least one filtration criterion from the plurality of filtration criteria, and based on removing the at least one filtration criterion, generate an updated database query; submit the updated database query to the historical dispute database; based on submitting the updated database query, identify a second number of historical dispute cases larger than the first number of historical dispute cases; generate, from the second number of historical dispute cases, a first count of wins for the first party at a first stage in a dispute resolution process; generate, from the second number of historical dispute cases, a number of resolved cases at the first stage; compute a first stage win percentage for the first party based on the first count of wins and the number of resolved cases; weight the first stage win percentage by a first weight value assigned to the first stage, thereby resulting in a weighted first stage win percentage; generate a dispute score representing a likelihood of the first party or the second party in prevailing in the active dispute case over the other of the first party or the second party in the active dispute case, at least in part by combining the weighted first stage win percentage with at least one other weighted win percentage for at least one other stage; and transmit the dispute score for display to the first party or the second party; wherein generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases comprises configuring the updated database query to… select a plurality of records involving both the first party and the second party that were resolved at the first stage, count the plurality of records that were resolved in favor of the first party to generate the first count of wins associated with the first party, and count the plurality of records to generate the number of resolved cases.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in a commercial interaction as well as performance of the limitations in a mathematical calculation (including mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations). That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass analyzing transaction disputes by determining a likelihood of a particular party prevailing. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Additionally, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in in the human mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). Furthermore, the steps of computing a first stage win percentage, modifying the first stage win percentage, and generating a dispute score cover performance of the limitations in a mathematical calculation, and thus fall within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas that fall within both the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," "Mathematical Concepts," and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, & 15, as a whole, amount to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer element of “at least one processor,” “at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions,” “a historical dispute database having computational resources, the historical dispute database communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one memory,” “the at least one processor, the at least one memory, the historical dispute database, and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to,” “cause the historical dispute database to,” and “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to.” Claim 8 recites the additional generic computer element of “computer-implemented,” “the historical dispute database having computational resources,” “causing the historical dispute database to,” and “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to.” Claim 15 recites the additional generic computer elements of “computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions that, upon execution by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to at least,” “the historical dispute database having computational resources,” “cause the historical dispute database to,” and “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to.” Claims 1, 8, & 15 also recite the additional elements of “thereby distributing a computational complexity of generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases to the computational resources of the historical dispute database, limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the at least one processor (claim 1),” “thereby distributing a computational complexity of generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases to the computational resources of the historical dispute database, limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and an at least one processor of a computing device implementing the computerized method (claim 8),” and “thereby distributing a computational complexity of generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases to the computational resources of the historical dispute database, limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the processor (claim 15).”
The additional elements of “at least one processor,” “at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions,” “a historical dispute database having computational resources, the historical dispute database communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one memory,” “the at least one processor, the at least one memory, the historical dispute database, and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to,” “cause the historical dispute database to,” and “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to,” “computer-implemented,” “the historical dispute database having computational resources,” “computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions that, upon execution by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to at least” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “thereby distributing a computational complexity of generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases to the computational resources of the historical dispute database, limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the at least one processor (claim 1),” “thereby distributing a computational complexity of generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases to the computational resources of the historical dispute database, limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and an at least one processor of a computing device implementing the computerized method (claim 8),” and “thereby distributing a computational complexity of generating the first count of wins and generating the number of resolved cases to the computational resources of the historical dispute database, limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the processor (claim 15)” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “cause the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to: select a plurality of records,” “causing the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to: select a plurality of records,” “cause the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the at least one processor,” “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and an at least one processor of a computing device,” and “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the processor” are mere extrasolution activity that is appended to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The extrasolution activity of “cause the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to: select a plurality of records,” “causing the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to: select a plurality of records,” “cause the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the at least one processor,” “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and an at least one processor of a computing device,” and “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the processor” is similar to functionality found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” “Electronic recordkeeping,” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the additional elements as recited in claims 1, 8, & 15 of: “at least one processor,” “at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions,” “a historical dispute database having computational resources, the historical dispute database communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one memory,” “the at least one processor, the at least one memory, the historical dispute database, and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to,” “cause the historical dispute database to,” and “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to,” “computer-implemented,” “the historical dispute database having computational resources,” “computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions that, upon execution by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to at least,” “cause the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to: select a plurality of records,” “causing the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “cause the historical dispute database, using the computational resources of the historical dispute database, to: select a plurality of records,” “cause the historical dispute database to: execute the database query,” “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the at least one processor,” “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and an at least one processor of a computing device,” and “limiting an amount of data transmitted between the historical dispute database and the processor” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, & 16 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “via a user interface (UI)” in dependent claims 4 & 11 amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor of the computer, further cause the-processor to” and “cause the computer to” in dependent claims 16 – 20 amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights