DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in reply to the response and/or arguments filed for Application 18/828,689 filed on 27 February 2026.
Claims 1-20 have been previously canceled.
Claims 21, 24, 28, 31, 35, 38 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
A. U.S.C. § 112 Rejections:
Claims 21-40 stand rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments with regard to the claims have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph is withdrawn.
B. U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Claims 21-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. Applicant argues that representative claim 28 recites specific technical operations – e.g., “electronically updating value amounts associated with multiple merchant accounts and settlement accounts”; "sending a bank authorization request to a first financial institution associated with the payment vehicle"; "receiving a bank authorization response from the first financial institution”, that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or through manual human activity and therefore an abstract idea is not recited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The basis of the rejection is not directed to mental processes covering performance in the mind, but rather the invention as being directed towards an abstract idea (without significantly more) of facilitating the settlement of accounts associated with the performance of a transaction in an automatic manner, grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (marketing; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in step 2A prong one. Applicant’s argument is therefore moot and unpersuasive.
2. Applicant further argues that even if the claims recite an abstract idea, each of amended independent claims 21, 28, and 35 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “acquirer processor”, “processor”, “database”, “user interface”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions (“settlement rules”) to perform a settlement process comprising the steps of receiving (“information associated with a … merchant account”, “settlement rule for settling the payment vehicle transaction”, “payment vehicle authorization request”), transmitting (“sending a bank authorization request”, “bank authorization response”), processing (“crediting an aggregate account”) and updating (“updating a … value amount associated with a … merchant account”) data and/or information associated with the performance of a financial-related transaction. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. Applicant further argues that, similar to the claims at issue in Example 35, amended claim 28 is also patent-eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in Example 35.
In the decision regarding Example 35, the claimed invention was clearly directed towards ensuring secure transmission of data from a card using a smart label and encryption techniques. The invention leverages the wide-spread use of mobile personal communication devices (smart phones) to facilitate the secure transmission. When a customer is issued a bank card with a smart label, the financial institution also provides a downloadable software application to the customer to install on their mobile communication device. The software application is designed to assist communication with a specially outfitted ATM. The ATM in accordance with the invention includes a controller that is programmed with a time-variant random code generator which generates a random code when activated in response to the reader receiving data from the customer’s bank card. The random code is transmitted by the ATM to the customer’s mobile device. The software application generates encrypted data displayed as an image on its display screen in response to the random code received. The customer is prompted to allow the ATM to scan the image displayed by the mobile device to verify authenticity by matching the random code that was generated for the current transaction. The outcome of the comparison is used to control access to the ATM keypad. As such, Applicant’s method allows the ATM to receive user card data in a more secure and efficient manner so if the ATM user is not the authorized customer and does not have the appropriate verification software on their mobile device, the transaction is concluded. Thus, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea and describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN. The additional elements thus represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud prevention that performs identity verification in a non-conventional and non-generic way, even though the steps use well-known components (i.e., a processor and mobile communication device).
In the instant application, whereas the additional elements also comprise the use of computer-related components and/or technology – e.g., “acquirer processor”, “processor”, “database”, “user interface””, that does not amount to significantly more when considered individually, when combined, an inventive concept is not found in the arrangement of the additional elements which are applied to carry out the abstract idea of facilitating the settlement of accounts associated with the performance of a transaction in an automatic manner, which therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
There are no improvements made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally applying the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
4. Applicant further argues that no evidence has been provided that the specific combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the factual evidence requirements under the Berkheimer standard, no argument and/or reasoning has been made by Examiner construing the rejection of the claims as being based on the elements being well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Therefore the requiring of evidentiary support is not an issue in this instance. Applicant’s argument is therefore moot and unpersuasive.
5. Applicant further argues that and the claim as a whole would pass Step 2B and provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions (“settlement rules”) to perform a settlement process comprising the steps of receiving (“information associated with a … merchant account”, “settlement rule for settling the payment vehicle transaction”, “payment vehicle authorization request”), transmitting (“sending a bank authorization request”, “bank authorization response”), processing (“crediting an aggregate account”) and updating (“updating a … value amount associated with a … merchant account”) data and/or information associated with the performance of a financial-related transaction using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 28 is not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, representative method claim 28 is directed towards facilitating the settlement of accounts associated with the performance of a transaction in an automatic manner. Claim 28 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions (“settlement rules”) to perform a settlement process comprising the steps of receiving (“information associated with a … merchant account”, “settlement rule for settling the payment vehicle transaction”, “payment vehicle authorization request”), transmitting (“sending a bank authorization request”, “bank authorization response”), processing (“crediting an aggregate account”) and updating (“updating a … value amount associated with a … merchant account”) data and/or information associated with the performance of a financial-related transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; marketing or sales activity; managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in step 2A prong one. Claim 28 recites:
“receiving, from a database, information associated with a first merchant account and a second merchant account, the information including a settlement rule for settling a payment vehicle transaction associated with the second merchant account from a payment facilitator associated with the first merchant account;
providing a user interface that interacts with the database to onboard one or more sub-merchants, and adjusting one or more fees associated with the second merchant account of each onboarded sub-merchant in the database;
receiving, via the user interface, the settlement rule for settling the payment vehicle transaction associated with the second merchant account from the payment facilitator associated with the first merchant account;
receiving a payment vehicle authorization request for a first transaction from a point-of-sale terminal, based on a payment vehicle being presented to a sub-merchant at the point-of-sale terminal by a payment vehicle user;
sending a bank authorization request to a first financial institution associated with the payment vehicle;
receiving a bank authorization response from the first financial institution for the first transaction, the authorization response including an authorized amount of the first transaction;
electronically crediting an aggregate account of an acquirer processor with the amount included in the bank authorization response;
electronically crediting a first amount in the aggregate account to the first merchant account in the database using the settlement rule;
electronically crediting a second amount in the aggregate account to the second merchant account in the database using the settlement rule;
electronically distributing the first amount in the first merchant account to the first settlement account of the payment facilitator at a second financial institution; and
electronically distributing the second amount in the second merchant account to the second settlement account of the sub-merchant at a third financial institution.”
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Using settlement rules to facilitate the settlement of accounts associated with the performance of a commercial transaction is a method of organizing human activity as it is a known and existing economic and/or commercial practice and/or concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “acquirer processor”, “processor”, “database”, “user interface”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions (“settlement rules”) to perform a settlement process comprising the steps of receiving (“information associated with a … merchant account”, “settlement rule for settling the payment vehicle transaction”, “payment vehicle authorization request”), transmitting (“sending a bank authorization request”, “bank authorization response”), processing (“crediting an aggregate account”) and updating (“updating a … value amount associated with a … merchant account”) data and/or information associated with the performance of a financial-related transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions (“settlement rules”) to perform a settlement process comprising the steps of receiving (“information associated with a … merchant account”, “settlement rule for settling the payment vehicle transaction”, “payment vehicle authorization request”), transmitting (“sending a bank authorization request”, “bank authorization response”), processing (“crediting an aggregate account”) and updating (“updating a … value amount associated with a … merchant account”) data and/or information associated with the performance of a financial-related transaction using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 28 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 21 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 28 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 28 applies to claim 21 accordingly.
Independent claim 35 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 28 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 35 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 28 in terms of a computer readable medium (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 28 applies to claim 35 accordingly.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Royyuru et al. (US 2013/0254110 A1) discloses systems and methods for processing payment transactions. Embodiments of the disclosure relate to systems and methods for communicating transaction-related data to a recipient device. In at least one embodiment, a computer-implemented
method can be provided. The method can include directing storage of transaction-related information comprising payment data and value added services data. The method can further include communicating the transaction-related information to a recipient device during a card emulation communication initiated by the recipient device, wherein the recipient device utilizes the transaction-related information to complete a payment transaction and provide one or more value added services associated with the payment transaction.
Eide (US 2015/0127527 A1) discloses a payment processing system and method. In Eide, a computer-implemented method, system, and computer program product for processing a payment comprises: receiving a transaction request from a payee, the transaction request including an identifier of a payor, and identifier of the payee, and a payment amount; prompting the payor to input login credentials for a payor-identified funding institution; receiving the login credentials from the payor; transmitting the login credentials to the funding institution; receiving, from the funding institution, information regarding one or more accounts at the funding institution linked to the payor; prompting the payor to select an account; and generating a fund transfer request to instruct a financial clearing house to transfer funds in the amount of the payment amount from the selected account to a receiving account associated with the payee.
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
