DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/819,295 (08/29/24) filed on 04/21/26.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147999. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to:
US Pat. App. No. 18/819,295 (as represented by claim 11)
US Pat. No. 12,147,999 (as represented by claim 11)
A method to select a payment processor to process a transaction, the method comprising:
A method to determine which payment processor should be used to process a transaction based on transaction processing latency, the method comprising:
managing, by a server, an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration, wherein the consumers access the online platform through a user interface of the online platform;
managing, by a server, an online membership platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering subscribership to consumers in exchange for consideration such that acceptance of offers for subscribership through payments of the consideration causes the consumers to become subscribers to the content creators, wherein the consumers access the online membership platform through a user interface of the online membership platform;
monitoring, by the server, processing of transactions of payments of the consideration by a set of payment processing entities;
monitoring, by the server, processing of transactions of the payments by a set of payment processing entities;
generating, by the server and based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction fulfillment latency;
generating, by the server, performance information for individual payment processing entities based on monitoring the processing of the transactions by the individual payment processing entities, the performance information for an individual payment processing entity comprising an individual transaction processing latency, wherein a first payment processing entity is associated with a first transaction processing latency;
obtaining, by the server, transaction information characterizing a requested transaction;
obtaining, by the server, transaction information characterizing requested transactions of the payments of the consideration, the requested transactions including a first requested transaction by a first consumer; and
and determining, by the server, which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the requested transaction, including:
for an individual requested transaction, determining, by the server, which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the individual requested transaction based on the individual transaction processing latency not exceeding a latency threshold and the individual requested transaction satisfying other criteria of the payment processing entity, including:
in response to the transaction fulfillment latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction.
for the first requested transaction, in response to the first transaction processing latency not exceeding the latency threshold and the first requested transaction satisfying a first set of other criteria of the first payment processing entity, determining the first payment processing entity should process the first requested transaction.
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 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 11, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves managing an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration; monitoring processing of transactions of payments of the consideration by a set of payment processing entities; generating, based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction fulfillment latency; obtaining transaction information characterizing a requested transaction; and determining which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the requested transaction, including: in response to the transaction fulfillment latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (managing an online platform hosting content creators; selecting a payment processing entity; processing transactions); commercial or legal (managing an online platform hosting content creators; selecting a payment processing entity; processing transactions); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (managing, monitoring, generating, obtaining, determining, selecting).
The mere nominal recitation of “a server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to managing an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration; monitoring processing of transactions of payments of the consideration by a set of payment processing entities; generating, based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction fulfillment latency; obtaining transaction information characterizing a requested transaction; and determining which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the requested transaction, including: in response to the transaction fulfillment latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually managing an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration; monitoring processing of transactions of payments of the consideration by a set of payment processing entities; generating, based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction fulfillment latency; obtaining transaction information characterizing a requested transaction; and determining which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the requested transaction, including: in response to the transaction fulfillment latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction.
The mere nominal recitation of “a server” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a server” performing some of the positively recited steps or acts. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “wherein the consumers access the online platform through a user interface of the online platform”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data processing (e.g., “managing”, “monitoring”, “generating”, “determining”, “selecting”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “obtaining”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering transaction information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of “a server”. (b) Although a “online platform” is referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of a “online platform” and a “online platform” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 08/29/24 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Dinan, US Pat. No. 12,002,015; and Kurylko, US Pub. No. 2021/0158317 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data processing (e.g., “managing”, “monitoring”, “generating”, “determining”, “selecting”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “obtaining”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data processing (e.g., “managing”, “monitoring”, “generating”, “determining”, “selecting”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “obtaining”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 12 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claim 1 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The component(s) (e.g., “one or more physical processors”) described in independent system claim 1, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product(s) (system) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 10 (claims 3 - 9 based on their dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claims 1, 2 and 10 (claims 3 - 9 based on their dependency): The claims are indefinite because of contradictory interpretations regarding what is performing the claimed invention. The preamble of the claims suggest the claimed invention is exclusively from the perspective of a “system” comprising “one or more physical processors”. The body of the claim however suggests most, if not all, of the positively recited steps are performed by another, distinct device (i.e., “a server”) creating ambiguity and indefiniteness in the claim.
NOTE: The particular language used is not required, but intended as an aide to the applicant in overcoming one or more of the objections and/ or rejections noted in this office action. Alternative language may be proposed. Please indicate where support may be found in the specification for any amendments made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinan, US Pat. No. 12,002,015 in view of Kurylko, US Pub. No. 2021/0158317.
Re Claims 1 and 11: Dinan discloses system/ method to select a payment processor to process a transaction, the system/ method comprising:
monitoring, by the server, processing of transactions of payments of the consideration by a set of payment processing entities (Dinan, col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 12, lines 1 - 24);
generating, by the server and based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction fulfillment latency (Dinan, col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 12, lines 1 - 24);
obtaining, by the server, transaction information characterizing a requested transaction (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6); and
determining, by the server, which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the requested transaction (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3) including:
in response to the transaction fulfillment latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Dinan fails to explicitly disclose:
managing, by a server, an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration, wherein the consumers access the online platform through a user interface of the online platform;
Kurylko discloses:
managing, by a server, an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration, wherein the consumers access the online platform through a user interface of the online platform (Kurylko, abstract, [0004] [0011]);
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Dinan and Kurylko are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to processing payments. See also, para. [0001] of applicant’s specification as filed 08/29/24. In this case, Dinan is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of determining which payment processors are best suited to execute certain transactions. See also, para. [0004] [0042] of applicant’s specification as filed 08/29/24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Dinan by adopting the teachings of Kurylko to provide managing, by a server, an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration, wherein the consumers access the online platform through a user interface of the online platform.
One would have been motivated to improve responsiveness, speed and efficiency.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claims 2 and 12: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
facilitating, by the server, execution of the requested transaction via the payment processing entity (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3);
Kurylko further discloses:
responsive to execution of the requested transaction, providing a consumer with access to a creator page of a content creator (Kurylko, abstract, [0004] [0011]).
Re Claims 3 and 13: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
wherein the facilitating execution of the requested transaction includes effectuating communication of transaction instructions to the payment processing entity (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Re Claims 4 and 14: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
determining the set of criteria based on a service guideline associated with the payment processing entity (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 7, line 53+ - col. 8, line 50; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Re Claims 5 and 15: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
wherein the service guideline is a terms-of-service contract (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 7, line 53+ - col. 8, line 50; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Re Claims 6 and 16: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
wherein the performance information for the payment processing entity further includes a transaction processing cost (Dinan, col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 11, lines 26 - 42).
Re Claims 7 and 17: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction further based on the transaction processing cost not exceeding a cost threshold (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 43; col. 11, lines 26 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Re Claims 8 and 18: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
obtaining a preference hierarchy, the preference hierarchy conveying whether less fulfillment latency or less processing cost is more preferred (Dinan, col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, line 28+ - 67; col. 11, lines 16 - 42); and
selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction based on the preference hierarchy (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 67; col. 11, lines 16 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Re Claims 9 and 19: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Dinan further discloses:
in response to a failed attempt to process the requested transaction by the payment processing entity, selecting a second payment processing entity in accordance with the preference hierarchy (Dinan, abstract, col. 1, line 37+ - col. 2, line 6; col. 8, line 50+ - col. 9, line 7; col. 10, lines 28 - 67; col. 11, lines 16 - 42; col. 14, line 66+ - col. 15, line 27; col. 16, line 42+ - col. 17, line 3).
Re Claims 10 and 20: Dinan in view of Kurylko discloses the claimed invention supra and Kurylko further discloses:
establishing a network connection between the server and a remotely located client computing platform associated with a consumer (Kurylko, Fig. 1, [0029] [0030] [0034]);
generating, by the server, information defining the user interface of the online platform (Kurylko, Fig. 1, [0029] [0030] [0034]);
effectuating communication of the information defining the user interface of the online platform to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface (Kurylko, Fig. 1, [0029] [0030] [0034]);
obtaining, by the server, user input information defining user input into the user interface of the online platform (Kurylko, Fig. 1, [0029] [0030] [0034]); and
generating the requested transaction based on the user input (Kurylko, Fig. 1, [0029] [0030] [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No terminal disclaimer has been filed.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to local processing of payments for remotely processed goods (e.g., managing an online platform hosting content creators; selecting a payment processing entity; processing transactions).
This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, the abstract and para. [0001] of applicant’s specification as filed 08/29/24 states:
ABSTRACT Systems and methods are provided to process payments for subscribership within a membership platform. Exemplary implementations may: obtain benefit information for content creators of a membership platform; obtain payment processor information characterizing payment processing entities; obtain transaction information characterizing requested transactions between the content creators and the subscribers; determine which of the payment processing entities should process the requested transactions; execute the requested transactions using the payment processing entities; and/or perform other operations.
[0001] The disclosure relates to systems and methods to process payments for subscribership within a membership platform.
See at least independent claims 1 and 11 as filed 04/21/26.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to local processing of payments for remotely processed goods (e.g., managing an online platform hosting content creators; selecting a payment processing entity; processing transactions). Local processing of payments for remotely processed goods, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “sales activities or behaviors”, and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., managing, monitoring, generating, obtaining, determining, selecting).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “managing ….. an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration …..; monitoring ….. processing of transactions of payments of the consideration by a set of payment processing entities; generating, ….. based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction processing latency; obtaining ….. transaction information characterizing a requested transaction; and determining ….. which payment processing entity in the set of payment processing entities should process the requested transaction, including: in response to the transaction processing latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction.”.) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 20 recite performance on a machine (e.g., “one or more physical processors”/ “by a server” in system claims 1 - 10; “by a server” in method claims 11 - 20), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
NOTE: With respect to Applicant’s suggestion that Applicant’s claims have not been examined “as a whole” or “the Office Action improperly conflates the specific technical implementation of the claim with an abstract idea itself” (See pg. 13 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/21/26).), the Examiner disagrees. The 2(A), Prong 1 analysis focused on the aspects of the claimed invention directed to the abstract idea. The additional elements and consideration regarding whether there were limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application were discussed in the 2(A), Prong 2 analysis.
NOTE: It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “A human being cannot manually monitor real-time digital traffic across third-party networks, nor can a human mind calculate latency to drive a selection engine in real-time.” See pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks 04/21/26) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: There is no “real-time” requirements or “third-party networks” recited in the claimed invention. See independent claims 1 and 11. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, applicant arguments appear to conflate what a “human mind” is capable of calculating; and the use of a computer as a tool or benefits that may arise from automation (e.g., speed, efficiency).
112
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 2 and 10 (claims 3 - 9 based on their dependency): The claims are indefinite because of contradictory interpretations regarding what is performing the claimed invention. The preamble of the claims suggest the claimed invention is exclusively from the perspective of a “system” comprising “one or more physical processors”. The body of the claim however suggests most, if not all, of the positively recited steps are performed by another, distinct device (i.e., “a server”) creating ambiguity and indefiniteness in the claim.
Prior Art
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to explicitly disclose, ‘generating, by the server and based on monitoring the processing of the transactions, performance information for a payment processing entity, the performance information indicating a transaction fulfillment latency”; and
“in response to the transaction fulfillment latency not exceeding a latency threshold, and the requested transaction satisfying a set of criteria associated with the payment processing entity, selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction.”
Dinan discloses destination selection criteria may specify desired characteristics or status of a final destination payment processor (akin to “performance information for a payment processing entity” as claimed). Dinan further discloses the destination selection criteria may, among other considerations, specify a response time (e.g., an average response time) (akin to “transaction fulfillment latency” as claimed) be less than a certain value (akin to “not exceeding a latency threshold” as claimed). Dinan further discloses based on the destination selection criteria, a final destination payment processor may be selected from candidate payment processors (akin to “selecting the payment processing entity for processing the requested transaction” as claimed). See citations supra.
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Dinan and Kurylko are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to processing payments. See also, para. [0001] of applicant’s specification as filed 08/29/24. In this case, Dinan is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of determining which payment processors are best suited to execute certain transactions. See also, para. [0004] [0042] of applicant’s specification as filed 08/29/24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Dinan by adopting the teachings of Kurylko to provide managing, by a server, an online platform hosting content creators, the content creators offering content for consumption by consumers in exchange for consideration, wherein the consumers access the online platform through a user interface of the online platform.
One would have been motivated to improve responsiveness, speed and efficiency.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to processing payments.
US 11080711 B2
US 8794509 B2
US 20070282741 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights