DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information disclosure Statement(s) filed 4/28/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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.
3. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recite(s) the limitations of: receiving, by a first merchant, from a consumer, a first purchase request for a first financial amount and receiving an identification from the consumer of a credit account with an issuer bank from which the first financial amount is to be paid to the first merchant;
receiving, directly from the first merchant, a first micropayment request for the first financial amount;
sending a credit reduction request to the issuer bank for a second financial amount, the second financial amount being larger than the first financial amount, whereby the issuer bank reduces a credit limit associated with the credit account by the second financial amount;
sending, a first approval notice to the first merchant approving the first micropayment request without sending the first micropayment request to the issuer bank for approval;
receiving, by a second merchant, a second purchase request from the consumer, the second purchase request being for a third financial amount and identifying the credit account with the issuer bank from which the third financial amount is to be paid to the second merchant;
receiving, directly from the second merchant, a second micropayment request for the third financial amount;
sending a second approval notice to the second merchant approving the second micropayment request without sending the second micropayment request to the issuer bank based on a total of the first financial amount and the third financial amount being less than the second financial amount;
sending, a single approval request to the issuer bank for the first micropayment request and the second micropayment request and sending a credit reset notice to the issuer bank for a fourth financial amount, the fourth financial amount being at least as much as the total of the first financial amount and the third financial amount;
whereby the issuer bank resets the credit limit associated with the credit account by the fourth financial amount in response to the credit reset request.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interactions and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed invention allows for a method of processing micropayments which falls into the groupings of abstract ideas of certain method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions). The mere nominal recitation of a generic transaction processor computer system does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements—a transaction processor computer system. The transaction processor computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving a micropayment request, sending a credit reduction request to an issuer bank, and sending a first approval notice) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-16, 20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-10, 12-13, 15-16, 20 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to the amendment of claim 1, the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection.
Applicants argue that the pending claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, through shifting the decision processing to a transaction processor for specific transactions, and the micropayments are aggregated and submitted, in combination, in a single approval request to the issuer bank, through a payment network. The argument is not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to an improvement in a business process not an improvement in a technological process. The transaction processor computer system is recited at a high level of generality and performs the claimed functions in its ordinary capacity. In other words, the focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools.
Applicants contend that that the micropayment requests are received at the transaction processor, directly from the merchant, and are not submitted through the acquirer (e.g., acquirer or merchant bank 14 in the instant application, etc.), or on to the issuer resulting in reduction of network traffic and therefore recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The argument is not persuasive because the argued increase in efficiencies comes from a general-purpose computer, i.e., a transaction processor computer system. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”).
The applicants argue that the claimed invention is similar to the claims found in Bascom. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, the court found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea under step one. Id. at 1347-49. Under step two, the court found that the limitation of the claims, taken individually, recited a generic computer, network, and Internet components which were not inventive themselves. Id. at 1349-52. However, the court found that the ordered combination of these limitations provided the requisite inventive concept. Id. The claimed and described inventive concept was the “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Id. at 1350. The design permitted the filtering tool to have “both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server.” Id. This was not customary or generic, and the claims did not preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet—instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was a “technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id. The court thus distinguished ineligible “abstract-idea-based solutions[s] implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way” from the eligible “technology-based solution” and software based invention[] that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.”” Id. at 1351 (citation omitted).
The claims in the instant application do not require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network. The claims in this application specify a method of processing micropayments including receiving a micropayment request directly from a first merchant, sending a credit reduction request to an issuer bank, sending a first approval notice to a first merchant approving the first micropayment without sending the request to an issuer for approval, receiving a second purchase request, receiving directly from the second merchant a second micropayment request, sending an approval notice to second merchant, sending approval request to issuer for both first and second micropayment requests whereby the issuer resets a credit limit, but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicants contend that the amendments to the claims now include a transaction processor computer system and the claimed architecture provides a technical improvement and is significantly more that the alleged idea because the claimed invention alleviates and reduces payment network traffic. The argument is not convincing because limitations which describe only procedure or structure common to every means of accomplishing a given result, cannot provide an inventive concept. In other words, limitations that simply “comprise the abstract concept” are not inventive. See Ultramercial Inc v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example, a claim cannot become eligible by reciting that physical automation is accomplished by a “machine” or that logical automation is accomplished by a “computer,” see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 778 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), because physical automation requires a machine and logical automation requires a computer. Because such elements cannot restrict a claim to a particular way of automating, recitation of a machine or computer “to lend speed and efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” CLS Bank Int' l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 11269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicants contend that the claims are directed to a practical application of the abstract idea under Prong Two and are similar to the claims in the CAFC decision, Uniloc v. LG Electronics, Fed. Cir. 2020. The argument is not convincing. In the Uniloc v. LG decision, the claims at issue do not merely recite generalized steps to be performed on a computer using customary or conventional computer activity. Instead, they are directed to “adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station.” See, e.g., ’049 patent at Claim 2.
The specification in Uniloc v. LG explains that because many secondary stations are battery-operated, secondary stations may enter a “park” mode and cease active communications with the primary station to conserve power. Id. at 1:43–45, 1:62–66.
A secondary station in parked mode remains synchronized with the primary station, but it must be polled before it can leave park mode and actively communicate with the primary station. Id. at 1:43–51. Furthermore, the specification explains that the invention improves conventional communication systems by including a data field for polling as part of the inquiry message, thereby allowing primary stations to send inquiry messages and conduct polling simultaneously.. at Abstract. The claimed invention therefore enables “a rapid response time without the need for a permanently active communication link” between a parked secondary station and the primary station. Id. at Abstract. The court found that the claims were directed to a specific asserted improvement to the functionality of the communication system itself.
Here, the claimed invention is directed to an improvement in a business process, not technology. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
The applicant alleges that the claimed invention specifically moves the approval decision for micropayment requests to the transaction processor and away from an insure bank and permits the transaction processor to do things it could not do before similar to the specific steps recited in Finjan v. Blue Coat Sys. The argument is not convincing. Finjan v. Blue Coat Sys. addresses a problem concerning virus scans that generates a security profile identifying both hostile and potentially hostile operations in the realm of computer technology. Unlike the claims in the instant application, the claims in Finjan are not financial in nature. The claims in the instant application are not directed to virus scans and are not akin to those found in Finjan. The claimed invention is directed to solving a problem that is financial in nature and recite an abstract idea.
Applicants argue that the pending claims are akin to those in McRO, and provide a specific, concrete way of achieving the result of reduced network traffic and faster responses and are therefore patent eligible. The argument is not persuasive. In McRO, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id, at 1316.
Unlike in McRO, the recited “transaction processor computer system is not a rule-based improvement of a technological process. The claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving computer animation through the use of specific rules to set morph weights and transition parameters between phonemes. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process.” The claims at issue in McRo described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. In contrast, Applicants’ claims address a method of processing micropayments. The claims in McRO were directed to an improvement in the operation of the computer at a task, rather than applying a computer to perform generic data manipulation steps, as in the claims of the instant application. See id, at 1314.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights